O

ver the past few months there has been considerable review of what government's role should be in
housing and community development. The major motive behind this has been the radical recissions in
government aid wrought by the Reagan administration and its rechanneling of yet a larger chunk of
national resources into military spending.
Clearly, people at the neighborhood level are going to have
to take new and different approaches in order to create new
housing and maintain existing housing for poor and moderate
income people. The approaches we adopt will be framed on
one side by our own possibly idealized memories of now
departed government programs, and on the other by the
drastically reduced role government currently intends to play
in the supply of housing to those in need of better shelter. The
question is: is it possible to succeed given those boundaries as
well as in consideration of present economic realities?
One of the most promising programs begun in the last few
years was the Neighborhood Self-Help Development
Program, a grant-making tool for neighborhood groups to
initiate their own self-help projects. Off to a vigorous start in
1980, by mid-1981 the program had been sliced away.
Roberto Nazario helped lobby the Self-Help program
through Congress and tried in vain to help it survive the cuts.
Here, Nazario gives us an overview of a program that seemed
to exemplify the "Republican" vh:tues ofbootstrap
development and the leveraging of substantial private dollars
with modest government investments. His article helps us
understand what momentum was lost and why.
Ideas about what could replace programs such as Self-Help
are being considered by the President's Commission on
Housing, whose ftrst report is summarized here by the
National Low Income Housing Coalition and interpreted by
Cushing N. Dolbeare.
Contrary to the hard lines suggested by many in the
administration-that the best low income housing role for
government is the least possible one, the Commission, in its
ftrst report, has said that there is a continuing need for an
active government role in the provision and maintenance of
decent housing. Dolbeare, a long-time observer of the
evolution of federal housing policies, ftnds some signs of
hope for low income housing advocates among the Commis-
sion's [mdings and urges them not to abandon its hearings to
the commercial side of the housing industry.
The major recommendation put forth by the Commission
is a housing voucher system through which poor people
would pay for the housing of their choice, within minimal
government guidelines. In order to understand how a voucher
system might work, Frank DiGiovanni and Mary Brooks
undertook a study for the Pratt Institute Center for
Community and Environmental Development. By examining
the current Section 8 rent subsidy program for existing
housing, the Pratt study gives a picture both of how a
voucher system might work and what problems it could
encounter. While the study found that Section 8 Existing
certiftcates have worked fairly well-a conclusion many
might differ with-the study points out that a shiftto
vouchers under the present suggested guidelines would leave a
substantial number of needy people unserved. It also raises
the important questin of how a voucher system could hope to
replace all government assistance for new and rehabilitated
housing.
The question of adequacy raised in terms of the federal
housing policy for the age of austerity suggest that the task of
neighborhood organizations is going to be even more difftcult
in years to come. Robert Schur, a housing consultant and
neighborhood activist, suggests that the best route for
community groups is to rediscover the tools that helped them
become established.
Beyond the neighborhood level, organizing will have to be
ambitious in order to reverse the federal withdrawal for
housing and other essential services. We commit to the
attention of neighborhood activists the work of the Fair
Budget Action Campaign, a coalition of Washington-based
groups that have come together to maintain a government
commitment to providing for human needs. The Campaign is
providing information to state and local activists on how to
organize for a humane ftscal year 1983 budget. Write to them
at: Fair Budget Action Campaign c/o FRAC, 1319 F Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. Attn: Rus Sykes/Bristow Hardin
or call them at (202) 393-5060.0
ThIs specIal Issue was funded by the New Yorlc CommunIty Trust and the Fund for The CIty of New
Yorlc through a grant to the Pratt InstItute Center for CommunIty and EnvIronmental Development
TransItIon Study.
The Demise of a Self-Help Program ............ A1
Report of the President's Commission ......... A4
From the White House to Our House .......... A7
The Shape of Housing Vouchers ............. A 10
Back to Basics .... .. .... . ......... . ...... A 14
CITY LIMITS/January 1982
Short Term Notes
Smoke Detected In Two New Bills
A
s THE DECEMBER 31 DEAD-
line approached for the installation
of smoke detectors in multi-family
dwellinp, hotels and rooming houses in
New York City, several legislative
attempts were made to make it easier for
tenants wishing to install non-radiation
emitting detectors.
With two types of smoke detectors to
choose from, most building owners have
opted for the more inexpensive ioniza-
tion-type which emits a very low level of
radiation. While each detector by itself is
not necessarily harmful, in combination
with other radiation-emitting appliances,
as well as in its disposal, the detector
poses potential hazards. Many have also
expressed long-range health concerns
about the cumulative effect of many
detectors in small, densely-populated
areas (See City Limits, November, 1981,
"Smoldering Smoke Detectors").
Bills favoring the safer, somewhat
more expensive photoelectric detector,
CONTENTS
Volume t, Number I
-
Short Term Notes ........................... 2
Squatting and Evictions ...................... 5
Letters .................................... 8
Housing and the Homeless ................... 9
A New Sweat Equity ........................ 11
Mitchell Lama Evictions? ............... : .... 12
Rental Lotteries ............................ 14
V\lest Side Urban Renwal ..................... 15
3
were introduced in the City Council. One
bill, introduced by Carol Greitzer (D-L,
Manhattan) would have extended the
installation deadline past year's end for
those cases where photoelectric units are
on order but have not yet been installed
because of a delivery and manufacturers'
backlog. The bill, . however, was
defeated. Three other bills calling for
either the banning of ionization detectors
altogether or giving tenants the right to
choose between the two models have also
been introduced. Many tenants wishing
to have photoelectric detectors in their
apartments have experienced difficulty
getting the cooperation of their landlords
and the city. Those bills will likely be
assigned to the Housing and Buildings
Committee of the Council for a hearing.
If passed, it is unclear what impact the
measures wol,lld 'have since, under the
new law, all smoke detectors were to
have been ordered and installed by year's
end. o HarrIet Cohea
CCITYUMI1S)
CITY LlMITSlJanuary 1882
Discriminating Landlord Fined-Could Lose Tax
Break
A Brooklyn federal court awarded a
record amount in damages to a black
tenant in a housing discrimination suit
last month. With this decision in hand,
according to one official, the city plans
to rescind the "J-51" tax benefits
granted to the building named in the law-
suit. If the rescission occurs, it will ~ the
first time such an action has been taken
for discriminatory practices.
A six-member, all white jury gave
$20,000 in compensatory damages and
$30,000 in punitive damages to Earl
Brown, 27, an aide to Manhattan
Borough President Andrew Stein.
Charged in the lawsuit were two rental
agencies, Interboro Management and
Rent Rite Realty, their owner, Leonard
Spodek, and the landlord, Van Plaza
Realty Corporation.
It was the highest jury award ever
returned under the 1968 fair housing law,
according to the National Committee
Against Discrimination in Housing.
Beginning in May 1979, Brown
unsuccessfully attempted to rent a
$300-a-month unit in 20
Plaza Street East in Park Slope, then an
all white apartment building. Suspecting
racial discrimination, he sought the help
of the Open Housing Center, a private
fair housing agency. The Center med
suit on Brown's behalf after he was
denied an apartment which had been
offered to a "white checker," a white
applicant sent by the housing agency. A
week after legal papers were med for the
suit, Brown rented an apartment in the
building.
Witnesses at the subsequent trial testi-
fied that letter codes "HW," "JJ," and
"EV" were placed on apartment listings
to designate them ' black, white, or
Hispanic. Spodek denied the charge that
he used a racial code. He claimed that
the initials were those of employees, such
as "JJ" for James Johnson, according
to Lawrence Grosberg, Brown's attor-
ney. But no record of Johnson's employ-
ment with the rental agencies was
produced at the trial.
In a related move, the city intends to
renege on part of the $60,000 in "J-51"
tax abatements awarded Van Plaza
Realty, said Daniel Zanini, counsel to
the Tax Incentive Program at the
Department of Housing Preservation
and Development. That amount was
abated for improvements made at Plaza
Street East. Never before has the city
attempted such an action, Zanini said,
although the administrative code which
governs the city tax abatement program
specifically bars benefits going to owners
who discriminate.
In addition to 20 Plaza Street East,
Van Plaza Realty owns 60 Plaza Street
East, also named in the lawsuit,
according to Brown's attorney.
The state Atttorney General is
currently suing Spodek and his brothers,
Irving and Boris, for overcharging
thousands of tenants through excessive
rents, unreturned security deposits, and
illegal brokers' fees.D Jim Mendell
Council Adopts Anti-Lead POisoning Bill
A new law aimed at eliminating a
major source of lead poisoning in young
children has been adopted by the City
Council. Sponsored by Councilman
Stanley E. Michels, the law classifies
peeling or chipping lead-based paint in
apartments as the most hazardous
housing code violation and empowers
the city's Department of Housing Pres-
ervation and Development (HPD) to
order landlords to remove or cover such
paint immediately. '
The new law also requires that the
city's Health Department be notified of
all lead paint violations recorded by
housing inspectors so it can contact the
affected families and advise them of lead
poisoning tests and other precautionary
measures.
CITY LIMITS/January 1982
Severe lead poisoning cases can result
in death or mental retardation, but
recent medical research shows that even
relatively low levels of lead. can produce
subtle brain damage.
"This legislation fmally acknowledges
that the problem of childhood lead poi-
soning is as much a housing maintenance
issue as it is a public health concern,"
Councilman Michels explained, noting
that much of the city's older housing
stock is in poor repair and undermain-
tained, posing a continuing threat of lead
posioning to younger children.
"Existing Health Code provisions
against the use of lead-based paint alone
have proven ineffective in combatting
this most serious problem," he added.
"I am hopeful that a more compre-
4
hensive approach, employing the re-
sources of the city's housing agency and
the authority of the housing maintenance
code, will make a significant difference
in helping to curb this terrible disease. "
Lead-based paint was banned in 1960
but is still present in most older apart-
ment buildings. When it becomes
exposed and accessible, it poses the
greatest danger to children under seven
years old who have a tendency to eat
paint chips and who, according to health
experts, are the most susceptible to lead
poisoning.
Of the limited number of children the
city's Health Department was able to
screen for lead poisoning last year, 6,000
were found to have elevated levels of
lead in their blood. D
( LETIERS
Don't Abandon
'Good Repair'
To the Editor:
The article "Lobbying for Good Repair" in your
November '81 issue is helpful in providing needed exposure
for Assembly Bill #4141, which would make it easier for
banks to enforce the "Good Repair" clause contained in
standard apartment building mortgages. Unfortunately it
may convey to tenants associations and organizers a faulty
impression: that "we cannot do anything with this clause as
things presently stand, so the only alternative is to press for a
remedy through the legislature." The experience in the
Northwest Bronx has been otherwise.
The first foreclosure to be successfully prosecuted in recent
years based on the Good Repair Clause involved the Dollar
Savings Bank, the mortgagee and Palja Gazivoda, landlord!
mortgagor of the building at 2492 Devoe Terrace in the Uni-
versity Heights section. The bank initiated the action April 1,
1979; a receiver was appointed July 23, 1979, and the fore-
closure sale to a local, responsible landlord was completed
September 9, 1981. Two other buildings have actually been
foreclosed based on this clause. These foreclosures have made
the threat of enforcement believable to irresponsible land-
lords.
A second, more important point should be made. Whether
the Good Repair Clause is enforceable in court or not, it is in
any case useful for an organized tenant group to invoke it in
order to get repairs and services for their building. The
situation is similar to that of the organized rent strike prior to
the Warranty of Habitability law. Tenants and organiztrs
were constantly told by a lot of landlords, lawyers and
housing court judges: "What you're doing is illegal." This
mayor may not have been true. It did not matter though,
because a well organized rent strike where the rents were
deposited together in a bank account usually brought the
landlord or management into serious negotiations, and
substantial repairs and improved services would follow.
In the same way, the Good Repair Clause is an effective
organizing tool even now, before additional legislation is
passed. Any organized tenant association can apprOMil the
mortgage holder of their building as a group and press for
action under this clause, either in combination with other
tactics such as rent withholding or a show cause order, or as
the main strategy for bringing the landlord or agent into
serious negotiations. If a bank decides to cooperate and
demands repairs and from the landlord, the resulttm
t
alliance with the tenant association can be persuasive enough
that he or she will deliver needed repairs and services. If this
brings the owner in to negotiate at the same session with the
tenants and the bank, it may become apparent that either
mortgage relief or an infusion of additional bank funds
should be provided for building improvements, as long as
building income can support it.
If this does not bring about results, the bank can proceed
with the foreclosure and a receiver will be appointed
temporarily. In low and moderate income neighborhoods, so-
called "depressed" market values of multi-family apartment
buildings are seldom much higher than existing mortgages, so
the Court can certainly approve foreclosure in order to
protect the investment.
The Good Repair Clause is one of those rules that has been
on the books for years, but that lending institutions and
landlords have chosen to ignore. People who take appropri-
ate, imaginative steps to capture mortgage-holding banks'
attention can take advanta&e 'of it right now.
Jim Mitchell
Northwest Bronx Community
and Clergy Coalition
A Non-Conciliatory Appeal
To the Editor:
I would like to take exception to your recent City Limits
article, Rent Complaint Board: The Out-Of-Towners
[November, 1981J.
Your article repeated false allegations of "chronic under-
funding aDd short-staffmg [at the Conciliation and Appeals
BoardJ. Its landlord-funded sponsor, the Rent Stabilization
Association, failing to adequately fmance the enforcement
agency."
Your article further focused on the technicalities of where
two members of the CAB reside and implied: "These are
patronage plums."
Let's examine the real facts. In the past four years the Rent
Stabilization Association has increased its funding of the
CAB from $1.8 million to $3.1 million, an increase of more
than 70 percent. This has enabled the CAB to bolster its staff
from 91 to 124. The RSA funding levels for the CAB are not
determined unilaterally, but in fact are negotiated with the
final approval of the City Department of Housing Preserva-
tion and Development.
The City Administration has helped to reduce the CAB
workload by transferring, with State Legislative authoriza-
tion, responsibility for administering the senior citizen rent
exemption program, a task which was formerly done by 24
CAB employees. While the program is now handled by the
city's Department 01 Housing Preservation and Develop-
ment, Division of Rent Control, the same CAB employees
who did this work, have been reassigned to handle tenant
complaints and other administrative tasks, further increasina
CAB's manpower.
Further improvements in CAB's operations C\Jl be
expected shortly since the agency recently relocated to much
6 CITY LIMITS/January 1882
larger offices, and will soon install advanced
communication equipment.
It is still true that the rent regulatory system, particularly
rent stabilization, is too complicated for both renters and
owners. However, great strides have been made to improve
the administration of this system.
Your article, somehow, missed the point-that the system
is disliked equally by owners and renters.
Sheldon C. Katz
Chairman
RENT STABILIZATION ASSOCIATION
OF N.Y.C., Inc.
Despite Katz's passing reference to questions of residency
raised in the CAB article, City Limits maintains that the main
points raised in our report constitute far more than mere
"technicalities. " Namely: that at least one and quite possibly
two publicly salaried, politically appointed Board members
charged with administering a New York City regulatory
system that affects, millions of tenants live outside the city, in
direct violation of state law.
Beyond that, Katz's claim of "false allegations" regarding
the CAB's funding constitutes a smoke screen to cover the
Rent Stabilization Association's own culpability in the
matter. Last year, while it is true there was an increase in
monies to the CAB, the RSA "negotiated" Commissioner
Anthony Gliedman of the Department of Housing Preserva-
tion and Development into approving $1 million less than the
CAB requested.
The real issue, not addressed by Katz or covered over by his
recitation of recently enacted cosmetic improvements at the
HOVSING
ENERGY
ALLIANCE
lor
TENANTS
HOUSING ENERGY ALUANCE FOR TENANTS,
Inc. [HEAT) is a not-for-profit energy cooperative with
over 70 participating member buildings, organizations
and' churches in NYC. HEAT has been created to lessen
the energy-related expenses of its members by providing
low cost home heating oil and related conservation ser
vices. In addition, energy audits are offered to co-op
members at reasonable cost by Energy Task Force, Inc.
You may be an eligible member for HEAT. Call
6751920 or write HEAT, Inc., 156 FIfth Ave., New
York. NY, 10010.
No membership fee is required.
CITY LIMITS/January 1982
6
CAB, is that the Board still suffers from a backlog of
10-15,000 cases, and an average processing time from
complaint to opiniOn that is close to two years. This situation
has existed at the CAB for three years and has undermined
the whole stabilization system. Only a substantially larger
staff than presently exists at the agency would have any hope
of making a dent in these figures.
All the players share the blame for this long-term situation.
While the RSA lobbies the city housing agency to reduce the
CAB's budget requests, and the city appeases the RSA, the
CAB takes no serious steps to previal in the negotiations
between the three parties. It never seems to occur to the CAB
that they might adopt the public posture of New York State
Attorney General Robert Abrams, who has condemned the
RSA's taking any role whatsoever in the CAB's budget
process or that the Board is free to go to court against HPD's
refusal to approve an adequate budget. They could prove
their need by simply showing their inability to perform duties
mandated under the Rent Stabilization Law with current
funds.
Katz's letter recounts, once one sees through the crocodile
tears, his ultimate satisfaction with things as they are at the
CAB. We strongly suspect that Katz would not want to see
changes at the CAB that would result in the effective and
meaningful enforcement of tenants' rights that are now
unenforced to the great advantage of the landlords who
comprise the membership of the RSA. His letter illustrates
once again the absurdity of giving the RSA primary responsi-
- bility for funding the same system it vigorously lobbies
against in Albany. Editors. 0
BROOKLYN ENERGY COOPERATIVE
Energy AudHs, Specifications and technical
assistance, Investigated contractors. Complete line
of conservation projects at discount, Financing
options.
562 Atlantic Ave. (near 4th Ave.)
858-8803
,
'Squatting' and Eviction
on LaSalle Street BySusanBaJdMn&nmUdMth
In a bold police action that many fully occupied when it went in rem,
observers interpreted as an escalation of tenants who resided there at the time say
tactics designed to prevent widespread most occupants were prompted to relo-
"squatting" in city-owned buildings, the . cate due to declining services in the
city housing agency last month forcibly -. ensuing years. More recently, many new
removed residents from a building on residents, considered illegal by the city
Manhattan's Upper West Side. housing agency, moved into the building
Two weeks earlier, a similar eviction and took responsibility for maintaining
attempt by the city and the Tactical it. (During 1981, tenants secured a new,
Police Force had been thwarted by the $3,500 burner for the building's heating
same building's residents, who were system.) Of the 19 families living in the
ready for the attempt, sat tight and won building before last month's evictiion,
out by virtue of their numbers. just five had been there in 1977.
But the 19 famlies living in the build- When the LaSalle residents appeared
ing, 126 LaSalle Street, were taken by at a December 9 State Supreme Court
surprise' on Decmeber 8 when several hearing to challenge the legal basis of the
police and Department of Housing city's police action, which was launched
Preservation and Development officials without benefit of a court order, they
moved in again to commence the secured a temporary restraining order
eviction process. This time, numbers that allowed the five "legal" families to
were on the city's side: by the height of re-entC(r their apartments. The order also
the action, which started just before 11 barred the city from removing any pos-
AM and lasted the rest of the day, more sessions or fixtures from the building
than a dozen police cars and vans lined and prevented any demolition or renova-
up in front of number 126 on the narrow tion at ' the site. On December 28, the
street between Broadway and Claremont LaSalle group returned to court and
Avenue; one LaSalle resident counted secured an order for the reinstatement of
over 50 police officers at the scene at 1 three more families in the building on the
PM. basis of emergency need.
The eviction squad methodically
removed doors from most occupied
apartments in the building. Over-
whelmed by the police presence, most
building residents left on their own. At
least one tenant, Steven Jones, 26, was
arrested, handcuffed and removed from
the building when he refused to allow
police to enter his third floor apartment.
The day's activities were capped by the
cinder-block sealing of the front entrance
around 6:30 PM, and police stayed on
guard long after that: as late 'as 2:45 the
next morning, five officers were seen
shuddering in the bitter cold in front of
the building.
Meanwhile, the ousted LaSalle
residents sought refuge at the homes of
friends and relatives.
At December's end, an "Article 78"
court proceeding brought by the LaSalle
residents against the city remained in
litigation. The legal action, which
chatIenged HPD's authority to effect the
police action, sought the LaSalle tenants'
reinstatement, at least until civil pro-
ceedings to determine rightful possession
of the property are completed. "The city
used the wrong forum here," asserted
Liz Gonzalez, an attorney for the group.
"They acted as judge, Jury and marshall.
They abused the law, period."
While legal maneuvering continued,
LaSalle residents-both those who had
been reinstated and those whose right to
possession remained in doubt-kept a
close watch on the building: a previously
organized 24-hour tenant patrol
remained ih effect; on December 15,
tenant patrol members were waiting for
an oil delivery. Said Arthur Hotaling, a
displaced resident whose mother is one
of the building's legal tenants: "I think
we'll eventually be able to take this place
... The court order was quite clear, that
HPD was to touch nothing in here.
That's why we're guarding the building
24 hours."
126 LaSalle was tax-foreclosed in
IfT17. Although the 29-unit building was Police in full force inside hallway of 126 LaSalle during evictions_
7 CITY LIMITS/January 1982
/
Tenants and supporters in front of 126 LaSalle Street during evictions.
Hotaling's optimism was shared by
many who seemed determined-as did
the city-to make the LaSalle case a
major precedent regarding homesteading
in city-owned buildings. But in the heat
of the December 8 bust and its after-
math, the, dominant emotion among the
residents and their supporters was out-
rage. "I've never seen anything like that
day in my whole life," said Gerard Jean-
Baptiste, one of the residents who says
he had hoped to do homesteading work
on his apartment. "Right now, I'm out
on the street."
HPD's Hard lJne
But at HPD, the line on LaSalle
remained hard. Dick Riley, a spokesman
for Assistant Commissioner Terry
Krueger, put it this way: "Our position
remains the same. We want to close it
down and do it now ... Our position
. remains, and we want to make that very
clear, that they just can't come in and
take over city:owned property." Riley
added that he believed most of the
LaSalle tenants had not actually been
'ving in the building. and that their
ecent actions constituted a "political
tatement."
Rol>ert Moncrief, an HPD official in
barge of upper Manhattan's in rem
roperty, who was on the scene during
e LaSalle bust, said the eviction com-
eneed when the building's last legal
t, an elderly woman, went to the
ospital. "This is why we came Tuesday,
lTV LIMITS/January 1982
because there were no more legal tenants
... They were trespassing on Tuesday
... We had checked thoroughly, checked
all our records, and as far as our records
showed, there were no more legal tenants
who have the right to be relocated by
us." According to Moncrief, the city
wasn't accepting rent from the LaSalle
tenants. "They were paying
themselves." He stressed that the
residents had gone into the building
without the city's consent, adding that
"we cannot allow that to happc;n. It will
only set a precedent."
Ed Kulkin, a special assistant to
Housing Commissioner Anthony
Gliedman helped direct police at the
LaSalle action. He was more blunt. "We
had this effort to consolidate," he
remarked, referring to the city policy of
moving tenants from under-occupied in
rem buildings. "This building was not
economically realizable to operate ...
This is a city-owned building. We're in
charge .. "
"aty Wants Control"
Assemblyman Ed Sullivan (D-L,
Manhattan), who also appeared on the
scene during the evacuation, attacked
that take-charge approach. "There are
already too many empty buildings in the
city," Sullivan lamented. "You would
think they would welcome people who
indicated with their feet that they are
willing to rehabilitate this building ...
8
But I think what is being said is clear.
The city wants control, their controL"
Beyond the assertion of authority,
\ some neighborhood residents suspected
other, more mercenary motives behind
the city's actions. Unlike most other
apartment buildings in the volatile Upper
West Side real estate market, many of
which are owned by Columbia Univer-
sity and other educational institutions,
126 LaSalle retained a working class
tenancy. Emptying the building, some
neighborhood residents suggested, could
pave the way for a high price at the
auction block.
Housing officials claimed no
immediate plans for the building. But
Dick Riley ruled out the possibility of
tenants homesteading the building under
the city's "sweat equity" program
because proposals for that program are
liprlted to buildings of 16 units or less.
Meanwhile, the City-wide Housing
Coalition, a newly organized group of
tenants and organizers that started after
the city initiated eviction proceedings
against "illegal" homesteaders in three
Lower East Side in rem buildings,
announced its support for the LaSalle
tenants. The Coaltion hopes to <Idress
issues of consolidation and auctioning of
city-owned buildings on a city-wide
basis. .
That group and other supporters of
the LaSalle residents criticized the city
housing agency's apparent insensitivity
to self-help development. As Assembly-
man Sullivan put it: "The city is so
obsessed with power relations. What
they did was just plain foolish. They
moved in without a court order ... The
city has to obey the law like everybody
else. I think the court is saying this, and
we seem to be winning this one."
At the start of the New Year, the 11
families still displaced from 126 LaSalle
Street remained to be convinced. 0
The Homeless:
Help Versus Headlines By REV. DONALD SAKANO
Homeless men receiving food at the Salvation Army's Booth House facility on the Bowery. The facility is the second largest in the state and offers
cafeteria, medical and psychiatric care and alcohol recovery programs.
Last spring, the Community Service
SOCiety published a report, Private
Lives/Public Spaces which estimated
that as many as 36,000 New Yorkers may
be homeless. Widely-heralded, but little
acted upon, the report provided
numerous case studies that clearly
indicate homelessness is not a matter of
preference, but of systematic victimiza-
tion. It helped refute the broadly-
accepted public notion that the homeless
are a perfunctory phenomenon, an inevi-
table group of ne' er do wells mostly
confmed to the Bowery who prefer the
streets and a bottle to a job and an A.A.
program. It also helped estabish that
homelessness is not simply a social
service problem, but a housing problem.
Having offered the analysis, a number
of groups have begun to act. One such
city-wide network is the recently
established Coalition for the Homeless, a
broad coalition of churches, shelters and
volunteer social service agencies that
have joined together to raise funds and
generate public support for sheltering
efforts as well as act as an advocate and
resource for the homeless. Clearly, the
Coalition has its work cut out for it.
Homeles1ness is a manifest fact of life
in every neighborhood of the city.
Community workers estimate that at
least one-third of the homeless popula-
tion have some history of hospitalization
for mental illness. There is little doubt
that the careless deinstitutionalization of
9
the state mental hospitals has contribut-
ed substantially to the problem. The lack
of adequate or even existing housing
resources had made claims of doing
"discharge planning" a cruel fiction.
While after-care mental health programs
continue to be expanded by the State
Office of Mental Health, the issue of
services becomes mute in the light of the
absence of basic housing resources.
It would be inaccurate to characterize
homeless people as a mental health
population, although many are in need
of psychiatric services. One only has to
review the current state of the low-
income housing stock in this city to
realize that homelessness is the logical
and inevitable result of hostile forces in
CITY LIMITS/January 1982
public policy. The diminishing number
of affordable rental units touches on the
heart of the problem. We continue to
experience the combined effects of
. investment and withdrawal of
sential services from multiple
wellings, the lack of a viable vacancy
ate, the growing disparity between
come and rent, and the conversion of
RO hotels and roominghouses to
'gher-income use.
The city's policies on homelessness
purposely confused, so that it
ot be held responsible for solutions.
n the one hand the Housing Assistance
Plan it drew up for spending this year's
federal community development funds
informs HUD that" A shortage of SRO
units haS left many former SRO residents
homeless." On the other hand, the
Mayor and Human Resource Adminis-
tration officials state that the closings of
SRO's are not contributory, nor is the
problem as massive as 36,000 homeless
people. At State Assembly hearings last
November, the Mayor asserted that the
municipal shelter system is the City's
answer to the problem.
That however, has been
challenged by the Coalition for the
Homeless and attorney Robert Hayes. A
consent decree, signed by the City in
August as a result of a suit on behalf of
homeless men, has mandated the .
opening of shelter accommodations in
addition to the Men's Shelter on 3rd
Street, the Keener Building on Ward's
Island and Camp LaGuardia, upstate
New York. However, the City has
steadfastly refused to work with
voluntary agencies to fund small
community-based shelters. Asserting
that these smaller shelters are the only
way people can recover from the trauma
of homelessness, the City has argued the
"cost effectiveness" of facilities for 150
or more, located in remote, non-residen-
tial areas. Advocates of the homeless
claim that the penal atmosphere of the
public shelters only further re-enforces
the problem and appeal to public
officials for a realistic way for homeless
people to break out of the cycle of
despair.
Many groups who are providing direct
services to the homeless, aswell as
homeless people themselves, have
formulated strategies to address the
present crisis. A comprehensive anti-
displacement program must be
implemented including a moratorium on
the conversion of SRO units similar to a
law recently passed in San Francisco; a
comprehensive three-tier system of
shelter that will provide emergency half-
way house alternatives, and permanent
accommOdations; a reform in the
policies of deinstitutionalization that will
guarantee every discharged patient a real
place to live.
The growing numbers of homeless
people are clear evidence of the holes in
"safety net" theory. Thousands of
human beings are falling through the
weakened social fabric and hitting the
very hard cement. Unless we are willing
to accept as a matter of public policy that
the subways and streets are tolerable
living environments, government at
every level must renew its former
commitment to "provide a decent home
and suitable living environment for every
American." 0
To contact the Coalition for the
Homeless, write to them at 58
Washington Square South, New York,
NY 10014, or caD (212) 371-1000
ext. 2469.
Reverend Donald Sakano works/or
Catholic Charities 0/ the Archdiocese 0/
New York.
( CITYLIMI1S)
Manhattan
Soho Zat-W. Broadway & Canal St.
New Morning Books-169 Spring St.
N.Y. Marxist School (lSI W. 19 .St.)
Stand-7th Ave. & W. 14 St.
Idle Hour Greenwich St.
Stand-73 7th Ave.
West 4th St. 800ks-l48 W. 4th St.
Stand-65 W. 14 St. (Sixth Ave.)
Stand-Bleecker & W. 11 St.
WendeU's Books-302 w.n St.
Vinny's Variety-2 Ho.ratio St.
Stand-3858th Ave. (W. 29 St.)
Unity 800ks-235 W. 23 St.
China Books-125 Fiftb Ave. (19 St.)
Revolution Books-16 E. 18 St.
Stand-Union Sq: East & 1S St.
Stand:"'14 St. & Ave. A
Stand-417 Third Ave. (E. 29 St.)
Stand-E. 34 St. & Lexbtgton Ave.
CITY LIMITSlJanuary 1982
City Limits is available at these newsstands and bookstores.
If you know of other outlets for City Limits, please call 239-9423.
Tobacco Road-Cbristopber & 7th Ave.
Inner World 800ks-687 Broadway (3rd St.)
Stand-E. 23 St. & Park Ave. So.
Readen Stationary-Univ. PI. "E. 9 St.
Paradox 8ooks-128 E. 4th St.
Astor Smoke-St. Marks PL & Third Ave.
Eastside Books-34 St. Marks PI.
Stand--46 W. 42 St. (5-6 Ave.)
Coliseum Books-1m Broadway (57 St.)
Stand-Broadway" W. 62 St.
StaDd-2422 Broadway (89-90 St.)
Red Letter Books-Amsterdam Ave. & W. 92 St.
Magazine Emporium-Broadway" W. 111 St.
Stand-Broadway & LaSaUe St.
Stand-2795 (107108 St.)
10
Brooklyn
Stand-1S21 Kings Highway (E. 15-16 St.)
Stand-13 Newkirk Plaza
Stand-Cortelyou Rd. & Flatbusb Ave.
Stand-Bedford & Tilden
Stand-Utica & Church Ave.
Stand-Bedford & Clarkson
Stand-Rogers 4 Maple
Falasba Empire-1OS9 Nostrand Ave.
Stand-Washington & Sterling PI.
Stand-Myrtle & Ryerson PI.
Stand-26 Court St.
Community 8ooks-141 7th Ave.
Stand-Union St. & 7th Ave.
Stand":-Hanson PI.
,
City Umlls Focus .
A
llepublican'
Program
Bites the Dust,
By ROBERTO NAZARIO
A
s ONE OF THE MANY PROPOSALS PRESENTED
by the Reagan administration, early in 1981, Congress
was asked to terminate the three-year-old Neighborhood Self-
Help Development program, enacted in October, 1978. After
some hesitation, it obliged:' Now that the self-help program
seems to be one more community-oriented project which
washed away in the tide of "new federalism" , it is instructive
to examine just what was lost and why. As a neiihborhood-
strengthening tool, the grant seemed to many to
exemplify Republican principles; its fatal flaw being that it
was enacted under a Democratic administration.
During the fISCal year 1978 to 1980 the self-help program
made available grants directly to existing rural and urban-
based non-profit organizations working in the nation's
poorest communities. The grants were for use as investment
capital to seed specific self-sustaining neighborhood revitali-
zation projects. The enabling legislation for NSHD had a
strict. line between on-going, community work and those
activities that would generate physical and economic develop-
ment opportunities. NSHD also included a sweat equity self-
help component involving community residents in the
planning, decision-making and physical development 9J the
proposed project.
The program also made available technical assistance,
training, information and networking services to neighbor-
hood organizations throughout the nation. NSHD grants
were limited to supporting the preparation or packaging stage
of project development and where necessary a portion of cost
A1
to carry out project implementation. Project packaging costs
have historically posed serious fmancial obstacles to neigh-
borhood organizations. A variety of public and private
resources can be used for either construction or mortgage
fmancing, but getting to that point of preparation is
traditionally a long and expensive road' for non-profit
organizations. Funds are needed to help prepare mortgage
applications, develop cost estimates and architectural
drawings. perform engineering studies and soil tests and to
retain necessary legal assistance to review and prepare
contracts. '
The Self-help grants were structured so that grant
recipients could recapture "front..end" investments by
inclll:ding them in the permanent mortgage or sale of the
rehabilitated housing units for example. NSHD-funded
projects were to become income generators and provide
resources for the packaging of future neighborhood projects
sponsored by the group.
Under the administration's budget plan, the Community
Development Block Grant program (CDBG) was proposed as
an alternative funding source for activities supported by the
Neighborhood Self-Help Development Program. The Ad-
ministration proposed this alternative vehicle out of the
general feeling that the NSHD program duplicated other
efforts by the National Consumer Cooperative Bank, the
National' Housing Services Program and the Community
Development Program.
For example, in fISCal year 1980. the program made grants
CITY LIMITS
mustratioDS by Andy Epstein
to 125 urban and rural non-profit organizations totaling $14
million. In that year, the groups were responsible for
leveraging $220 million dollars. That included $8 million
worth of voluntary self-help, and almost $100 million in
money raised from private foundations, businesses, and
banks. The Community Block Grant program
does not require nor generally stimulate leveraging, does not
target its funding only to the "truly needy," and often is
spent on public capital improvements and operating expenses
rather than on projects that revitalize distressed urban and
rural neighborhoods. In addition, various city and state
restrictions stand as obstacles to the use of CDBG funds for
neighborhood revitalization. Rural prdjects also do not
receive sufficient CDBG money.
Congress agreed with the Administration and agreed to
rescind Hie budget of the Neighborhood Self-Help
Development program. Upon the approval of the Gramm-
Latta budget amendment, the activities addressed by NSHD
were formally made part of the Community Development
Block Grants, thus curtailing all efforts of the House to have
$6.6 million appropriation authorized for NSHD activities
for fiscal year 1982.
The Senate on the other hand agreed even more so with the
Administration's proposal and refused to consider any type
of authorization for NSHD for fiscal year 1982. Later it
decided to permit nine urban and rural neighborhood organ-
izations funded earlier on November, 1980, to receive
$500,501 of HUD Secretary discretionary funds to permit the
nine organizations to complete projects previously approved
byHUD.
With the termination of the Self-Help program, urban and
rural non-profit neighborhood organizations will find
themselves back at first base: no federal programs that can
provide direct grants to neighborhood organizations in the
nation's poorest urban and rural communities to use as
investment capital to seed specific, self-sustaining
neighborhood revitalization projects.
.. '
I
N THE FIRST YEAR OF THE PROGRAM, THE DE-
partment of Housing and Urban Development, through
its Office of Neighborhoods, Voluntary Associations and
Consumer Protection (NY ACP. now defunct), conducted
two cycles of grant competition in fiscal year 1980 supported
by a program appropriation of $15 million dollars. During
that year, HUD distributed over 13,000 application instruc-
tions, received over 1,300 completed applications and made
125 grant awards totaling $14 million dollars.
Recipients of the first grants would renovate 5,290 units of
housing and build another 872. All of these houses and
apartments would also employ energy-saving technology.
Through their economic development and commercial revi-
talization projects, the groups would assist 2nneighborhood
businesses and either renovate or build 503,364 square feet of
commercial space. The groups' projects would create 4,506
jobs in construction and Permanent positions.
The Office of Neighborhood Development, to make the
first 125 groups and other self-help organizations across the
country more skilled and efficient in running self-sustaining
CITY LIMITS A2.
revitalization projects, also provided technical assistance,
training, information and networking services. In 1980, 3,225
neighborhood group IJlembers and 22 State Departments of
Community Affairs received training in the areas of fiscal
management, housing rehabilitation, commercial revitaliza-
tion and anti-displacement strategies. Two thousand groups
signed on as members of the Neighborhood Information
Sharing Exchange (NISE), another program created by HUD
to provide a way for organizations to exchange information,
problem-solving techniques and seek local self-help expertise.
Other factors which made the grants popular with many
rural and urban neighborhood organizations were that all
projects which received grants were initiated and developed at
the locai level, without restrictive federal intervention or the
imposition of specific formulas or participation restrictions-
such as those found with the Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation which restricts its activities to urban areas and
neighborhoods having populations which are for the most
part non-transitional and moderate income-or-the now
defunct Community Services Administration which had to
conform to federally designed models.
T
HE NATIONAL SUPPORT INCLUDED THE USE
of NSHD as a vehicle to attract resources from the pri-
vate sector, including support recruited from the Ford Foun-
dation, the Local Initiative Support Corporation. (LISC),
Aetna Life, and other insurance, foundations and non-profit
fmancial and technical institutions.
As well, NSHD had directly assisted in attracting support
for neighborhood projects. from other Federal programs in
the Department of Agriculture, Labor, Commerce, Trans-
portation, and the Community Services Administration.
The Administration offered as one rationale for terminat-
ing the program the argument that activities previously
supported by the Neighborhoods program are eligible
activities under - Community Development Block Grants.
While the CDBG program has provided the means for a
wealth of sorely needed development throughout the nation
and an effective tool for exercising local control over the
development process, ,research shows that the
CDBG program has limitations for neighborhood self-help
projects,. in a number of ways.
Cities in some states are under restriction concerning the
disposition of property. If non-profit self-pelp groups were
working with CDBG funds, they would thus be limited in
their.ability to target the sale of their renovated housing to
low-income neighborhood residents.
Some cities may not legally be able to rent out residential
property. Therefore, if self-help groups were working with
CDBG funds, they would be limited in their ability to
maintain and collect income from renovated housing.
There are some city restrictions in the area of cooperative
conversion, another self-help type of project.
Several states prohibit cities from using public funds,
including CDBG, for income generating projects of
"private use. "
The attorney general of Oklahoma has ruled that localities
cannot offer below-market-rate loans to citizens or
"
corporations. This includes rehab loans.
Washington State prohibits, through its constitution, its
cities from lending any money to private citizens, thereby
negating the use of COBO as rehab loan money.
New York State has ambiguous restrictions on the use of
public funds as loans. The Attorney General of New York
has ruled that cities can use COBO as loan money, but
New York City has not accepted that ruling and does not
lend to individuals for housing repair purposes. Yet a
common . Neighborhood Self-Help activity is the
establishment of a revolving loan fund for home repairs.
. In Philadelphia, there is a policy of funding only housing
projects, so that economic development projects would
not receive COBO money.
Further, COBO does not fund multi-jurisdictional rural
projects in housing rehab and development. To obtain a
NSHD grant for the Opportunity Center in New Hampshire,
the towns of Canaan, Enfield and Orafton all cooperated
together. But they would not cooperate in applying for
COBO monies. nor. would one town allow the others to tax
funds it received for the use of its own towps.
With regards to leveraging and other differences between
COBO and Neighborhood Self-Help Program requirements,
the NSHO program requires and accomplishes leveraging.
The COBO program does not. Further. it is open knowledge
that most cities have limited experience in development
projects and cannot efficiently analyze and assist
neighborhood based projects of the type funded by Office of
Neighborhood Development.
"
Coupled with the changes in urban
and rural neighborhood self-help development organizations,
it will also be more difficult to assure that Community
Development Block Orant funds benefit low- and moderate-
income community residents, due to changes made by
Congress in regards -to citizens participation in the overview
of the COBO program.
The lessons learned through the use of the self-help
development grants won't be known for some time to come.
Those groups lucky enough to have gotten their grants during
its brief heyday are still involved in developing their projects.
But hundreds of other worthwhile rural and urban
neighborhood self-help groups are, in the meantime, cheated
out of an opportunity to apply for the funds. 125
organizations are presently developing income and job-
generating projects in their distressed communities that might
well never have been c o m m ~ n c e d without the help of the
. short-lived Office of Neighborhood Development. Soon we
may be able to see the price that was paid.O -
A3
Roberto Nazario is a former director of the New York City
group Adopt-A-Bui/ding and the Washington-based
Community Information Service. He is currently a Loeb
fellow in Environmental Studies at Harvard Graduate School
of Architecture and Design.
CITY LIMITS
CITY LIMITS A4
The Emerging' Reagan Housing
Policy
A Summary 01 Recommendations from the President's Housing
Commission
The shape of the Reagan Administration's housing policy
has been molded in large measure by the President's Commis-
sion on Housing. Established by Executive Order on June 16,
1981, the Commission was instructed to submit an interim
report by the end of October and a final version by late April,
1982.
While the Commission has a fairly broad mandate to deal
with "options for the development of a national housing
policy and the role and objectives of government concerning
the future of housing, " it is constrained to remain within the
limits of the President's Economic Recovery Program.
The Commission is advisory only. As with reports of past
Presidential commissions on housing and other issues, its
recommendations will undoubtedly figure in discussions of
federal housing policy, but nothing it says or does is binding
on anybody in government. .
What follows is a summary of major points made in the
Commission's first 100 page interim report, released October
19, the substance of which is likely to remain intact.
The First Interim Report covers two broad areas: a basic
set of principles and housing policy framework, and
recommendations for change in the federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development's subsidized housing
programs.
This summary is from the National Low Income Housing
Coalition.
CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
. This chapter, after setting forth a set of basic principles and
policy framework, summarizes the recommendations in Jhe
report and some of the reasons for them. The Commission's
basic principles are:
"Achieve fIscal responsibility and monetary stability in the
economy;
"Encourage free and deregulated markets;
"Rely on the private sector;
"Promote an enlightened federalism with minimal
government intrusion;
"Direct programs toward people, rather than towarCi
structures. "
Housing policy framework: The Commission
three "distinct but related" topics in its housing availability,
. adequacy and affordability. Generally, availability deals with
the supply of housing in the economy as a whole, adequacy
with housing quality, and affordability with the special
problems of low income people and first-time homebuYers.
In summary, the Commission states that problems of
housing availability are caused primarily by an inflationary
economic climate which has "raised the level and increased
the fluctuation of interest rates, thereby making housing
construction still more volatile." Citing past government
efforts to shield housing construction from these market
forces as ineffective and inflationary, the Commission
suggests that "the government should seek to provide re-
sources for housing through unrestricted access to the private
capital markets, helping to make the national mortgage
delivery workable in the short run and more effIcient
through appropriate structural change in the long run. It
should also encourage a stable economic environment for
homebuilding by reducing restrictions on the industry and
terminating excessive regulation of land development and
housing production, allowing the free market to provide
housing at lower prices and thereby making housing more
widely available."
Housing adequacy, which the Commission says has
improved over the last 40 years but is still "a severe hardship
for several million people," especially low-income renters and
first-time ,homebuyers, is linked closely with affordability.
Therefore, a major approach to dealing with housing
inadequacy is to improve incomes or provide housing grants
to very low income people.
In its recommendations, the Commission proposes "con-
sumer-oriented assistance payments" (rent vouchers) as the
"primary" program for assisting low income people. This
proposal is said to recognize "the continuing role of the
government in addressing the housing needs of the poor,
while at the same time it targets the scarce public resources for
housing on those most in need, and directs those scarce
resources-toward people, not toward structures."
The Commission adds that, although' such grants are
recommended as the basic mechanism for meeting poor
people's housing needs, "problems of adequacy and availa-
bility for these people merit national attention at present,"
particularly where local housing shortages "may inhibit the
effective working of a housing assistance program."
AS CITY LIMITS
CHAFfER 2. HOUSING ADEQUACY AND
AFFORDABILITY
This chapter deals with various definitions of housing
adequacy, centering on that of the Congressional Budget
Office, and describes who lives in inadequate housing, by
race, income, household composition, and urban/rural
distinctions.
On affordability, the basic point made is that over the last
40 years, if one keeps a constant quality unit as a reference
point, both renter and owner-occupied housing has become
generally more affordable. But the very poor have been left
out and this trend has reversed in the last several years.
Finally, the chapter notes that the affordability problem is
far more acute than the quality problem for very low income
households. That is, about twice as many such households
pay more than 30 percent of their irl.come for rent as live in
substandard housing. In 1977, almost two thirds of all 'very
low income renters paid more than 30 percent of their income
for rent, and a quarter of them paid more than half. Renters
above this income level seldom have comparable rent
burdens.
CHAFfER 3. CONSUMER-ORIENTED HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
The Commission recommends in this chapter "that the
primary federal program for helping low-income families
achieve decent housing should be consumer-oriented housing
assistance payments. This payment system should replace
future commitments to build additional units under Section
8, Section 202, and public housing."
The key features of the Commission's housing voucher
recommendations are:
"Eligibility should be limited to households with very low
incomes (no more than 50 percent of the area median
incom for a family of four), in order to target the
assistance dollars to those with the greatest needs.
"Within that income group, priority for assistance should
be based on income and on such criteria as: living in
inadequate housing; paying rent in excess of 50 percent of
income; or suffering involuntary displacement.
"Recipients should be required to live in standard housing
in order to qualify for assistance; but local quality
standards, subject to basic. national criteria, should apply
because housing market conditions vary widely across the
country.
, . "The payment formula should be adequate ,to enable
subsidy recipients to obtain decent housing, but not so
high as to drive rents up or enable them to live in better
housing than moderate income households, unless the
subsidy recipients choose to pay a larger than normal share
of their income for rent-an option that should be open to
them.
"The system should include a substantial local support
component for open housing and the enforcement of anti-
discrimination including current Federal Fair
Housing laws."
CITY LIMITS A6
Because there are an estimated 10 million renter households
with incomes below the proposed limits (50 percent of
median), only 2.7 million of whom-at most-now live in
federally assisted housing, the Commission proposes
additional priorities to direct vouchers to those whose need
for assistance is greatest.
The proposed payment level is intended to bridge the gap
between the amount recipients can afford (presumably, 30
percent of their income, although this is not stated explicitly)
and the rents of the size units they need in the local market.
Unlike the Section 8 Existing rent subsidy program, recipients
could keep the difference if they found a unit which rented
for less than the standard on which the subsidy is based or, if
they so chose, they could spend more.
While recipients would be relatively free to choose their
own apartments, they would not receive vouchers if they lived
in substandard units. Subject to a basic national floor, local
agencies could set their own standards, provided they did not
make them so high that they had the effect of making the
program unworkable. The program would be administered
by the same agencies that now administer the Section 8
Existing housing program (to which it is very similar). These
agencies . would either make or contract for the necessary
housing
They would also be responsible for providing or contract-
ing for "substantial local support services" for open housing
and for seeing that Federal, state, and local antidiscrimina-
tion laws were not violated.
The Commission recommends that the term of the federal
voucher commitment to the administering agencies be three
to five years. Presumably, local agencies would permit
recipients to keep vouchers as long as they are eligible, unless
program levels are drastically curtailed.
The specifics of. the relationship of the voucher program to
present housing assistance programs remains to be explored.
This exploration will include the possibility, as "an eventual
goal," of replacing public housing subsidies with vouchers.
However, "any such change should be carried out so as to
avoid either jeopardizing the present situation of public
housing tenants or focusing the housing payment program
unduly on public housing tenants."
Finally, the notes that the relationship of
vouchers to other federal assistance programs remains to be
considered. On the one hand, "it is not the intent of the
Commission to deny housing assistance payments to welfare
recipients." On the other, "noncash benefits provided by
welfare programs should be further considered for inclusion
in determining the assistance payments to individual house-
holds."
CHAFfER 4. IMPROVING THE AVAILABILITY OF
ADEQUATE HOUSING
This chapter begins:
-"If the consumer-oriented housing assistance payment
is to operate effectively in local housing markets across the
country, federal housing policy for lower-income
households must be concerned wit,h the maintenance and
expansion of an adequate supply of decent housing. The
experience with housing allowances and Section 8 Existing
Housing [rent subsidies] indicates that housing assistance
payments are highly effective in ameliorating the
affordability problem that most commonly faces low-
income households. These programs are less successful in
reaching the poor who live in physically inadequate
housing ... Thus there may be special problems of
adequate housing supply remaining even after a consumer-'
oriented housing assistance payment program is fully
operational. For this reason, the Commission believes that
it is important to increase the supply of adequate housing
through upgrading or new construction in places where
there is short supply or a relatively large share of the
current stock is seriously physicaI.ly inadequate."
The major recommendation on supply is that new
construction be added as an eligible activity for the
From
the
, .
White House
toOur
House:
..
community development block grant program, and that
"when budget circumstances are favorable" additional funds
be provided and, if needed, the formula for distributing these
funds be,revised to reflect need for new housing. The report
notes that the COBG program "already functions as a block
grant for housing, but ,with new construction excluded.
Adding new construction incorporates the full concept of a
housing block grant within the COBG program and
strengthens the proven ability of states and localities to
augment housing supply."
A fmal set of recommendations, listed for further study
and elaboration, includes: providing the same tax credits for
residential rehabilitation as are now available for other forms
of rehabilitation; encouraging private foundations and
religious institutiOns to continue their involvement in
providing housing; and changing the provisions of current
law or regulations that limit use of pension funds for housing
investment. 0
Looking lor'Direction from the President's Housing Commission
BY CUSHING N. DOLBEARE
T
HE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON HOUSING
has issued'its First Interim Report. Just who is the Com-
mission, how does it operate, and where does it go from here?
To start with, the Commission is unlike most sUGh bodies.
Typically, over the past several decades, Presidents have
appointed Commissions (or Congress has created them) to
make recommendations on major national problems. In part,
the role of such bodies has been to develop recommendations.
Even more important, perhaps, is their role in a consensus-
building process.
To make this latter role viable, Presidential commissions
have been at least nominally bipartisan, with their member-
ship carefully drawn from both political parties. Mor.over,
there have been no obvious limits set on the scope of their
recommendations. Perhaps because of this, Presidential
commissions have become more known for their rhetoric
than for the results of their work. For example, two Great
Society commissions on housing and urban problems
produced sweeping recommendations, including one that set
A7
a national goal of producing six million low income housing
units within a decade. A different c o ~ s i o n found that the
root of the riots and civil disorders of the 1960's lay, in the
existence of "two societies-one white and one black-sep-
arate but unequal."
President Reagan's Commission on Housing is different. It
was carefully chosen to represent a range of experience and
viewpoints basically compatible with' those of the President.
No surprise, then, that 24 of its 25 members are Republicans
and most or all campaigned for the President's election. The
Commission's charter states fllat its recommendations are to
fit within the limits set by the President's Economic Recovery
Program-in other words, no new money or dramatic new
. federal initiatives.
These constraints both limit the Commission's work and
make it more realistic. While the President, of course, has the
option of putting its work on the shelf.. it is designed to be
taken seriously. The timetable for the first interim report was
no accident: it was done to fit into the Administration's
CITY LIMITS
---
.-
.-
annual budget review and policy development process.
There is little doubt about the Commission's influence on
the Administration's housing policies. Its recommendation
that low income housing assistance be directed to people, not
to developers or state or local governments, is reflected in
HUD's budget proposals now under review by the Office of
Management and Budget and the White House.
~ year ago, there was a general assumption-at least in
Washington-that housing block grants were a virtual cer-
tainty and that housing advocates should be concerned not
with whether there should be such a program, but with how
to design it (or, if it was thought sufficiently repugnant, how
to head it off). Now, thanks in large part to the Commission's
work, the notion of a separate housing block grant is
dormant in an administration otherwise devoted to the
concept of recasting almost all federal domestic programs in
block grant form. Instead, somewhat to the consternation of
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the
Commission has stated unequivocally that federal housing
assistance should be directed to those in greatest need, and
has defmed that need, initially, as some seven million very
low income renter households-three times the number now
living in assisted housing after 4S years of federal low income
housing efforts.
H
OW OlD THIS HAPPEN IN A COMMISSION
charged with avoiding any major increase in housing
expenditures? Simple. The Commission states rather dryly
that it is not proposing an entitlement program-under which
all eligible households would receive payments. Significantly,
CITY LIMITS A8
the Commission is silent on what would be a desirable
program level-some early expressions of concern on that
score were headed off when one commissioner pointed out
that OMB and the White House would do what they wanted
to on program levels regardless of what the Commission said.
With that, there was agreement to address the substance of
federal housing assistance programs, not their level.
There are at least two ways to read the Commission report.
The frrst-and the way most low income housing advocates
appear to be doing it-is to focus on the Reaganesque
rhetoric: the support of the Economic Recovery Program; the
basic principles which, with a couple of exceptions, add up to
a statement that the market will solve our housing problems if
only allowed to do so.
A second way is to regard all that rhetoric as more or less
part of the furniture, and to focus on what the Commission
has said that does not necessarily follow from these
assumptions. Viewed in this light, the frrst interim report
makes some significant statements. A group of people
dedicated to limiting the role of the federal government when-
ever feasible has reached the following conclusions: (1) that
the free market will not and cannot solve' the housing
problems of low income people or people who are discrimi-
nated against; (2) that the scale of the low-income housing
problem is far larger than most of them imagined; (3) that
simply providing more money-in the form of housing grants
or vouchers-will not add to the housing supply, and that
there is a need, which the Commission is now addressing, to
deal with these problems directly.
The importance of these statements lies less in what is said
than in who is saying it. For example, it is stating the obvious
for a civil rights group to say that strong fair housing law
enforcement with supplementary local support efforts, such
as is provided by fair housing groups, is essential if housing
grants are not to perpetuate discrimination. The same
statement, made by Reagan's Commission, is far different in
its signficance. Similarly, the Commission's statement that
"government has a continuing role to address the housing
needs of the poor" is anemic compared with statements from
housing advocates that low income housing assistance should
be regarded as a basic human right. But, because of its
source, it could be far more influential in the halls of the
White House or with the leadership of the United States
Senate.
A
s THIS INDICATES, IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE
to assume either that the Housing Commission is
monolithic or that it is a stalking horse for the elimination of
federal low income housing programs. Commission members
will certainly not issue any clarion calls for a renewed and
intensified federal attack on low income housing problems.
But they do include a number of people who have worked
hard and effectively to deal with low income hous{ng needs
and who bring that concern to the Commission table. And,
by sticking to program concepts and avoiding joining the
issue of program levels, their recommendations may be
helpful in further loosening the grip of housing producers on
housing policy.
AS
The Commission's schedule is a tight one. Its rmal report is
due in April, which means that its basic recommendations
must be agreed to in February or early March. Still on its
agenda are such issues as the relationship of housing grants t<\
existing housing programs, particularly public housing; what
to do about the supply of housing in tight markets; home-
ownership for low income people and first time homebuyers;
elderly and minority housing needs; and the general crisis of
housing rmance and production.
What the result of all this will be is uncertain, either as to
substance or as to impact. OMB, and not the Commission,
will determine how much housing assistance the Administra-
tion will support. Congress, and not the Commission, will
determine what will happen then. And the dire state of the
thrift institutions and the home builders may well have more
influence than commitments to reduce the role of government
on the Commission's recommendations. So far, housing
advocates, particularly neighborhood groups, have made few
efforts to influence the Commission's work. This has left the
field primarily to those who build or rmance housing. Even
so, the Commission's work may well turn out to be one of the
more positive federal efforts on housing taking place these
days. 0
Cushing N. Dolbeare is Director oj the National Low Income
Housing Coalition and has been assisting jormer Senator
Edward W. Brooke in. his work as a member oj the
President's Commission on Housing. Her comments here
represent her own views, not those oj the Coalition.
CITY Lt'MITS
Housing Vouchers: The Shape of
AidtoCome
The most sweepms change proposed by the Reagan admin-
istration's Commission on Housing is its proposal to replace
a number of current programs with a housing voucher
program. The voucher idea has stimulated wide discussion
among those who have worked to improve housing programs
for low income people and has prompted concern that
substituting vouchers for most of the major federal tools for
low income housing represents a major step backwards in
national housing policy.
In' order to identify the problems such a program would
encounter, the Pratt Institute Center for Community and
Environmental Development has just completed a study that
examines the experience of the Section 8 Existing Housing
Program, the program most similar to housing vouchers yet
CITY LIMITS A10
By FRANK DiGIOVANNI & MARY BROOKS
implemented on a national scale. The study examined the
experience of the Section 8 "Existing Program in New York
City.
Dubbed "Consumer Oriented Housing Assistance
Payments Program", housing vouchers would go to eligible
households with incomes below 50 percent of the median
income for the area. A cash payment going to either landlord
or tenant (depending on the outcome of the current debate in
Washington on this question), a voucher would pay for the
difference between 30 percent of the renter's income and the
rent ceiling for acceptable, quality apartments.
This housing voucher program has received support from
many interests including the Reagan administration, because
it does not cost as much as building or rehabilitating housing,
it is a simple program that helps lower iDcome tenants pay a
reasonable portion of their income for standard accommoda-
tions, it requires no long-tenn commitment of federal
resources, and it imposes no national housing objectives upon
local units of government (e.g. applications, site selection
criteria etcetera).
VOUCHER ASSUMPTIONS
But the proposal rests on certain assumptions: that the
poor quality of housing is not a serious problem any longer,
except possibly in a few areas; that there is not a general
shortage of rental housing; that the primary housing problem
rests in the inadequate incomes of very poor households re-
quiring them to pay exorbitant proportions of their income
for rent and that enough is known about programs of this
kind to believe that it can be reasonably administered.
But not everyone agrees with these assumptions. There is
substantial evidence that local housing markets differ
markedly across the country. There are major shortages of
available decent, habitable and standard dwelling units at
reasonable rents in many neighborhoods and cities.
quality appears to be a significant and persistent problem in
many communities.
Many of the objections raised against the vouchers program
are directed not against the concept of vouchers, but against
the way in which the concept has been translated into a
somewhat vaguely dermed program by the President's Com-
mission. One of the most important of these objections is that
the vouchers should not be seen as a substitute for the Section 8
Existing Program and programs that increase the number of
standard quality units for low income people.
The Section 8 Existing Housing program and other
experiments with housing allowances have proven to be
effective tools for eliminating excessive rent burdens of lower
income households and for promoting maintenance and
minor repairs of the units in which recipients live. While these
programs may prevent future deterioration, they do not
stimulate rehabilitation of clearly substandard units or the
production of new housing. Consequently, replacing these
housing programs which increase the supply of standard low
income housing with vouchers won't adequately address the
needs of low income households in areas that don't have a
sufficient supply of acceptable quality housing at rents they
can afford.
NOT AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM
A second major objection is the level of support envisioned
for the voucher program. Proponents of the interests of lower
income households have advocated that the voucher program
be offered as an entitlement program, one where the benefits
of the program are available to all eligible households. The
President's Commission rejected this position, despite the
recognition that only a small fraction of those in need of
housing assistance were being served by the current
programs. The Commission did not recommend a level of
funding for its proposed voucher program, although one of
its major arguments for replacing the production subsidy
programs with vouchers was that vouchers would serve a
greater number of households.
It is quite clear that the current administration also does
not view the housing vouchers as an entitlement program. In
fact, fewer households would be served by housing programs
in Fiscal Year 1983 according to recent administration pro-
posals. The number of additional housing units proposed by
HUD for next year is less than half the number funded in
1979, while no additional subsidized housing units are
proposed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Regardless of how the disagreement between HUD and OMB
is resolved, fewer, not more, households needing housing
assistance will receive it.
Can these differences of opinion be resolved? Possibly not,
but one place to start is to take a close look at the Section 8
Existing Housing Program in New York City and see what
can be learned about how a voucher program might work
here. After analyzing infonnation obtained from the Section
8 Existing program in New York City, and interviewing New
York community groups, the Pratt study reached four major
conclusions:
The low income population who will no longer be eligible
for federal housing assistance has serious housing needs
that would not be addressed under the voucher program.
Reliance on a housing voucher program as the primary
low income housing program creates problems in tight
housing markets such as New York City.
Lowering rent ceilings is likely to the rent burden
for many program participants.
A housing voucher program that is not flexible enough to
take advantage of all opportunities to meet the needs of
the housing poor will result in negative impacts on that
population.
WHO IS SERVED B-Y SECTION 8?
New York City's housing poor including low income
households, exhibit a variety of needs. Of the low income
population eligible for the Section 8 program in New York
City in 1976, nearly 26 percent lived in dwelling units that did
not meet quality standards. Another 21 percent lived in
standard units but paid rents above the Section 8 ceilings.
Most households who received rental assistance under
Section 8 entered the program in order to reduce the
proportion of their income they spend for rent. This occurred
because many of the Section 8 Existing recipients are elderly
households who lived in standard units but paid a very high
proportion of their income for rent. Most of the low Income
households (those earning between 50 and 80 of the
median income) who received assistance, however, were
seeking relief from substandard and overcrowded units. This
was especially true for larger, minority households. Minus
rent subsidies, it appears many low income families are too
strapped to afford quality apartments.
Before we examine the types of households that are likely
to be hurt by the change in income eligibility, an overview of
the households served by public housing and the Section 8
Existing program is necessary in order to understand how the
A11 . CITY LIMITS
needs of different types of households are being served by the
programs.
A vast majority-84 percent-of the households
benefitting from the Section 8 program and public housing
are very low income people. Nationally, the statistics are
similar.
Although the New York Qty public housing and Section 8
Existing program are each targeted to very low income
households, the populations served by the two are quite
different. Overwhelmingly-8S percent-the public housing
families are minority. More than half of these are families of
three or more persons, while some 27 percent are headedby an
elderly adult.
On the other hand, the population served by the Section 8
Existing program is older, and has far fewer minority
households. Of the 30,188 households receiving a Section 8
Existing subsidy, more than S3 percent were elderly. 'The
minority makeup of this group is less than half, a fact that
stems from the greater difficulty minorities encounter using a
Section 8 Existing certificate.
But within this group there are marked differences between
those of very low income and those in the low income
category. The low income recipients are predominantly
CITY LIMITS
minority households with children, most of whom had to
move from their former apartments in o r d ~ r to use their .
certificates.
WHO WOULD BE LEFf OUT?
What follows from this is that lowering the eligibility re-
quirements for a housing voucher program will effectively
block a larger number of minority households and families
with children. from participating. When it is considered that
these same families represented most of those who moved
from substandard dwellings in using their certificates, the
effect of the income changes are even more distressing.
The problems that group presently face would be
compounded by eliminating the supply side of low income
housing-Section 8 new construction and substantial
rehabilitation and public housing new construction. Hau
holds issued vouchers would have to locate units in the
existing housing stock. The experience of those issued Section
8 Existing certificates in New York City between January 1979
and June 1981 indicates that tight housing markets with a
large number of buildings requiring rehabilitation are likely to
encounter problems in trying to receive the available rental
A12
assistance in such a situation.
Under the administration of New York City Housing
Authority, more than 31,000 households-73 percent of those
issued rent certificates-managed to put them to use, either
by moving into decent quality or less crowded housing or by
paying less of their incomes in rent. But, while the number of
vacant, standard units was shrinking since 1979, the
. proportion of households issued certificates that eventually
used them has decreased somewhat.
More than half of the households that wanted to or were
required to move in order to receive the subsidy (either be-
cause their apartment didn't meet program standards or
because their landlord refused to participate in the program)
did not eventually receive assistance. In stark contrast, only
fifteen percent of those who were eligible to receive the
subsidy without moving did not receive the Section 8 subsidy.
Overall, minorities and households with children-those
most likely . to be living in substandard units before
applying-were the least likely to receive assistance after
having been issued a Section 8 Existing rent certificate.
Offici8J.s point out that many of these households 'may not
have used their certificates for personal reasons, such as an
unwillingness to move out of their neighborhood, or a lack of
understanding about how the program worked. But, since
these households either lived in physically inadequate or
overcrowded units or paid an extremely high proportion of
their income for rent, they clearly had strong incentives to
fmd an apartment meeting the standards. Those that did
manage to use their certificates benefitted substantially-get-
ting better, larger and (for them) less expensive apartments. A
more likely explanation, then, for not receiVing assistance is
that standard dwelling units could not be located because of
their short supply in New York City.
The voucher program advocated by the PresidentiiU
Commission would make none of these problems disappear.
Without some effort to expand the supply of quality units for
lower income people, those living in substandard housing will
fmd it very difficult to improve their housing situation.
AN APARTMENT AT WHAT COST?
Another problem on the horizon with a voucher program is
the acceptable cost of each apartment to the government.
Both HUD and OMB have proposed reducing the payment
standard for the cost of renting a minimally acceptable unit ,
that would be used to calculate each household's rent
contribution. Currently, many of those living in apartments
with Section 8 Existing certificates have rents very close to
maximum allowable fair market rents. Should the payment
standard be dropped ten percent, as has been proposed, a
substantial number of Section 8 recipients would be paying
more of theii income for rent. This reduction would
exacerbate the very problem-housing affordability-that
vouchers are designed to alleviate.
Households coming into the program after the new levels
are set would undoubtedly fmd it difficult to locate quality
voucher would again have failed to achieve its major purpose:
alleviating the rent burdens faced by many ldwer i n c o m ~
households ..
There are also large potential problems with the imple-
mentation of a housing voucher program. Neighborhood
group leaders suggested that requiring a potential recipient of
a voucher to obtain the cooperation of a landlord (as is
required by the Section 8 Existing program) means tenant and
landlord must be on good terms. That requirement invites
discrimination and exacerbates the problems single parents,
those with children, minorities and welfare recipients already
have in fmding suitable apartments.
According to interviews with community group leaders in
New York City, those neighborhoods which have a predom-
inance of substandard buildings, or have other signs of
deterioration could potentially suffer under a voucher
program. They expressed concern that such a program could
both "redline" and "triage" these neighborhoods by denying
vouchers to buildings within them and requiring those
currently living there to move. Community organizers also
expressed concern that no aspect of the program was designed
to reinforce the desire to stay in a particular building or
neighborhood.
COULD VOUCHERS ADAPT TO NEIGHBORHOODS?
housing below that rate in the city's tight rental market. Of There are similar concerns about how a voucher program
course, they would be free to secure an apartment at a rent as presently suggested would be flexible enough to utilize
above the payment standard, not so much out of choice but innovative tools for providing housing. Many perceived that
for lack of less costly alternatives. In such a situation, the ~ same problem had not been given priority in the design of
A13 CITY LIMITS
the Section 8 Existing program either.
Throughout the country and especially in New York City,
substantial efforts are underway to utilize conversions, sweat
equity programs and community management schemes to
increase low income housing. Could housing vouchers be
adapted to those efforts? Cities and neighborhood organiza-
tions could tie housing vouchers to such programs to
guarantee security and support for lower income people who
desire to stay in their neighborhoods as rehabilitation and
development activities are undertaken. Vouchers could be
used to achieve selected objectives in neighborhood
revitalization efforts by directing a set-aside number of
vouchers to projects. Tenants could also be allowed to use
their vouchers where a building is being converted to a co-op
or condominium, where tenants have taken over management
of a landlord-abandoned building or one where the landlord
has ceased to provide services. Under those programs,
vouchers could provide needed rent funds for bringing a
neglected building back up to code and adding to acceptable
housing stock in the neighborhood.
We believe these fmdings are too important to be ignored
as we consider a new housing assistance program. Where less
than entitlement to decent housing is being proposed, where
an adequate supply of housing is not available, where
eligibility requirements exclude many lower income people
and where the payment standard might be too low to secure
adequate housing without paying a large proportion of
income for rent, then reliance on the housing voucher
program as the primary tool for lower income households will
not only fail to adequately address the housing affordability
problem but will also not meet the housing needs of many
lower income persons.O
Frank F. DiGiovanni, oj Pratt Institute, was the primary
researcher Jor the Pratt Study. He was assisted by Mary E.
Brooks, consultant to Pratt, and Melanie Hudak and ClifJ
Holterman, graduate students oj the Department oj City and
Regional Planning at Pratt's School oj Architecture.
DiGiovanni and Brooks jointly wrote this article.
Organizing in the Age of Austerity
T
HE PROGNOSIS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD HOUS-
ing groups in the era of Reagan austerity is poor indeed
-if we look at the situation purely in terms of dollars for
neighborhood organization support and for housing develop-
ment projects. The full impact of the present administration's
cutbacks have yet to be felt in the housing sector. Once the
current Section 8 new construction, substantial and moderate
rehabilitation and the Sec!ion 235 small home projects get
built, there won't be any more. The only thing certain about
housing and community development budgets is that next
year and thereafter smaller amounts of money will be avail-
able to cover a broader range of activities.
While state and city officials decry federal cuts, it is clear
they are not going to fill the gaps, especially not in hOusing
programs, which are not only expensive but, in today's
political world, have low priorities. To the extent that state
and local governments do try to make up for lessened federal
aid, they are likely to reduce what they now provide for
housing in order to replace some of their lost revenues for
welfare, health, food stamps, education and programs for
the elderly.
In this state of affairs, what are neighborhood housing
groups to do?
We suggest that, realistically, there are two alternatives,
and that one of them can lead only to disaster for the housing
movement. You can, of course, struggle all the harder to
preserve your piece (or as lINch of it as you can) of the
rapidly shrinking pie. Or, you can reassess your situation and
begin doing what has to be done to carry on the struggle for
decent and affordable shelter for all people.
Recall, frrst, that even in the "best of times, " we never had
a national, state or local government policy which could
CITY LIMITS ..... A14
By ROBERT SCHUR
resolve the housing crisis. All we got in the good old days was
a few more dollars and a handful of jobs, for which we were
expected (a) to "cooperate" with the public policy of the
moment and (b) keep our neighborhoods cool and free from
embarrassing confrontations.
And, recall, too, how easy it was. For a few Section 8 units,
a couple of "points" of some private developers' tax syndi-
cations and a few dollars wrapped up in a package called
"neighborhood preservation" or "neighborhood self-help
development" or "community consultation," we fell all over
ourselves to become "responsible" local agents of the
establishment. Of course, we grumbled a bit about what we
were told to do and about complying with the arbitrary
demands of the bureaucrats. Many of us were all-too easy
prey to the co-optation tactics of government officialdom.
Like generations of elected officials from ghetto and minority
communities, the most valid criticism which could be made of
us was how cheaply we were bought.
Most community groups won't have to worry about that
much longer. Except that the city and state (and perhaps even
the Reagan people to a small extent) may still try to entice us
to bid against one another for the few meagre leavings which
may be put up for grabs later this coming year and next. If
anyone takes this bait, know that you will most certainly be
sealing the doom of other groups now and your own only a
little later on. For not only will the ante be lower, but the quid
pro quo is assuredly going to be higher. With watchwords like
self-sufficiency and public-private sector partnerships
becoming the order of the day, does anyone really believe that
we will be able, or even allowed, to serve the needs of our
communities while partaking of public largesse? Anyone who
does this either lost (or never had) any perception of what Our
communities' needs are, or just plain doesn't give a damn. In
which case, welcome to the New Order of Post-Great Society
Poverty Pimps.
I
T SHOULD BE PLAIN ENOUGH BY NOW WHAT
government strategy is in being. Instead of co-opting the
local neighborhoods by giving our kinds of organizations
fmancial support and projects to be busy with, the new view
is that we are no longer needed at all. Reagan and Koch have
clearly written off the inner cities, the ghettoes and the
minorities. Whatever may be given out to the neighborhoods
this time will be even more tokenism than before and is sure
to have tighter strings attached.
Where else can we go for soon-to-dry-up-funding? The
private foundations and corporations? Haven't they already
made it clear that they are not going to replace the govern-
ment trough? And to the extent that they are still in the
neighborhood business at all, aren't they tightening the
screws to make us the opposite of what we thought we were in
business for? Witness the Jolly Green Giant of them all-the
good old Ford Foundation-announcing its Local Initiatives
Support Corporation (LISq which (a) gets directly into bed
with the largest and most reactionary business corporations in
the nation and (b) tells neighborhood groups that if you want
any help, turn yourselves into mini-entrepreneurs capable of
making profits off the local folk you are supposed to serve.
The now becoming-privatized National Consumer
Cooperative Bank? With its control by the big, non-poor
cooperatives, its 12 percent and up loans and its drive to look
just like a private bank so it can peddle its bonds, is that outfit
going to meet our needs?
It's time to go back to basics. We must reverse the
prevailing perception that neighborhoods of poor and
moderate income people don't count. And we have to
counter the efforts to put neighborhood land to "higher and
better use" than as housing and amenities for those who live
there.
First, we have to understand, ourselves, what the aims and
purposes of this government of ours really are. Our
government is not, and never was, a benevolent one, bent on
equalizing resources and opportunities for the disadvantaged.
What progress has been made in this direction in past history
was invariably wrung from a reluctant establishment which,
from time to time, was made to fear that worse might be in
store if it did not yield a few concessions when demands
became strong and sometimes nasty. The civil rights
advances, the welfare improvements and even the housing
programs (meagre as they were) of the 1960s were the product
of confrontations, widespread civil disobedience in the south,
rebellions in the black ghettoes of the cities of the north and
west and welfare rights pemonstrations all over.
Housing, especially, has never been a function of govern-
mental concern for poor peoples' shelter needs. Though
advanced as the responses of socially progressive public
officials, government-inaugurated housing programs
invariably provide the biggest benefits for those who produce,
fmance and market subsidized housing. It provides at most
incidental (and always inadequate) relief for needy housing
consumers.
Put very bluntly, government provides benefits to the poor,
minorities and disadvantaged, not because they love them,
but because they fear them so. The extent of government
provisions for these elements of society is directly correlated
with the degree to which they generate such fear.
R
IGHT NOW, GOVERNMENT HAS LITTLE TO
fear. Their handouts to neighborhood groups during the
1970s helped put them in their present precarious position. A
couple of years ago, Professor Hans Spiegel of Hunter
College wrote a paper tracing the evolution of three
neighborhood-based organizations in the New York Metro-
politan area. He gave it the title: "From Confrontation to
Cooperation," thereby seeking to encapsulate the "progress"
of these groups from fighting the establishment to becoming
its partner in delivering services to their constituencies. Re-
reading that paper now, one has to ask the questions: was the
change worth it when government cancelled its part of the
bargain? And, can those groups return now to confronta-
tional tactics to regain what has been taken away? A more apt
title for Professor Spiegel's paper might be "From Confron-
tation to Co-optation and Can We Go Home Again?"
To survive, and to achieve what they were created to do,
neighborhood housing groups must become confrontational.
A15 CITY LIMITS
To do so effectively, these groups must, first, organize their
communities. A decade ago, every local housing group was
first, last and always, engaged in organizing. There wasn't
much else one could do then. There weren't any Community
Development Block Grants, nor any Neighborhood Preser-
vation or Community Consultant contracts; no CETA
workers and no NSA designations, UDAGs or Section Ss to
scramble for. And, of course, community management,
Tenant Interim Lease and the rest of the alternative
mangement programs hadn't yet been invented. Even tenant
organizing against private landlords had a rougher row to
hoe. There was no Housing Court; Article 7A hadn't been
amended to make it at least somewhat useful; and New York
State and City had never heard of a warranty of habitability
or of any rules against retaliatory evictions.
But whether they organized out of conviction or despera-
tion, their efforts bore fruit. Much of what was won during
the 70s would not have happened had the organizing activities
and the rent strikes, marches, demonstrations, sit-ins and
building take-overs not taken place.
Today, alas, many of the organizations which were once
the best and most successful organizers, no longer do much of
that. Some of them have probably forgotten how. Other,
newer, groups never learned-all it took them to get started
was a friendly elected official or two and a talented proposal
writer to make them into instant neighborhood developers.
We have to go back to communicating with the residents of
CITY LIMITS A16
our neighborhoods. We have to tell them the truth about why
they can't fmd decent housing at prices they can afford and
why they are either being abandoned or gentrified out of their
homes and neighborhoods. And if everyone works together,
something can be done about it-but only if we are mad
enough and smart enough to do what we have to.
We have to be organized and to act as organized constitu-
encies. We have to go back to some of the old tactics-and to
become better at them than we were before. Rent strikes and
building take-overs against landlords who don't make repairs
or provide services-including the City and the Housing
Authority and HUD, wherever they fail to give tenants what
they are entitled to. Demonstrations-picketing, rallies, mass
meetings-against landlords, irresponsible banks, public
agencies and officials. Who can recall the last time a group of
housing activists took over a commissioner's office, or
picketed his home or broke up a staid meeting of an establish-
ment conclave? What happened to the heady excitement, the
enthusiasm, the rallying of hundreds and even thousands to a
protest of just a few years ago?
Ask ourselves: how many bodies can my organization get
to march on City Hall, or even to a local official's district
office, for whatever grievance or purpose, today? Then: what
do we have to start doing and how do we go about it to be
able to summon this entire neighborhood into the streets to
send the message to those who are exploiting and ignoring us?
Our own local housing constituents, no matter how well
organized, won't be enough. We have to resume something
else which we once knew about but also seem to have for-
gotten-networking.
We have to reactivate and radicalize our existing and past
coalitions and umbrella groups. Outfits like the Association
of Neighborhood Housing Developers and the New York
State Tenant and Neighborhood Coalition must be sharpened
into more effective spearheads for inter-neighborhood and
inter-city communication and, above all, action programs to
make our voices and demands heard loud and clear.
Technical assistance groups must begin to serve the People,
and the real needs of our organizations and cease ~ g
satrapies of their public and private funders.
Beyond the housing and neighborhood arenas, we have to
begin dialogues with existing organizations, whose members
are suffering and whose goals are being thwarted by the
policies and programs of our governments. The labor unions
are, of cOUJse, the largest and most wealthy of such groups.
We need them and they need us-if we get our acts together
and can truly show that we represent the residents of our
neighborhoods. The time has passed for petty bickerings over
niceties of dogma and questionings of motives.
Reaganomics is a mandate for neighborhood groups to
change their strategies and reaffirm their original goals. Just
"getting funding" will no longer suffice. The axe is poised to
fall. If you don't get it in 'S2, you will for sure in 'S3. If we
don't get the message now, it will soon be too late. 0
I
Robert Schur is a housing consultant for neighborhood
groups. He wishes to thank Harriet Cohen who provided
both inspiration and substantial assistance in the preparation
of this article.
Sweat Equity Program
Launched By SUSAN BALDWIN
In an effort to revitalize an old, low
interest loan program for sweat equity
rehabilitation of city-owned buildings,
the Department of Housing Preservation
and Development has developed anew,
"more structured" plan and expects to
choose participants sometime after the
application deadline February 1, 1982.
Formerly known as the Direct Loan or
"sweat-contractor-sweat" program, the
new sweat equity plan for which HPD
issued a Request for Proposal December
15 calls on selected groups to contribute
their own "sweat" in the form of
interior demolition, and 'finishing' work
while outside contractors provide the
major rehabilitative construction work.
The city plans to spend between
$800,000 and $1 million in federal
Community Development money to
fund the program. To be eligible for the
loan, groups must select buildings with
no more than 16 units.
The program has no relationship to
the sweat equity homesteading program
run under the auspices of the city's
alternative management program where
qualifying groups receive grants of
$5,OOO-a-unit to rehabilitate buildings
using their own labor. .
Under this program, qualifying
groups aJe eligible for 30-year loans at
one percent interest for a maximum of
$27,500-a-unit. Following the rehabilita-
tion, the individual apartments in the
city-owned buildings will sell for $250
each.
Reaction to the newly.launched
program has been mixed. At the Urban
Homesteading Assistance Board, a
technical assistance outfit for city
homesteaders whose efforts have fueled
sweat equity rehabs for several years,
. ,
director Andy Reicher welcomed the new
program. "We're glad the city has
finally acknowledged the importance of
self-help efforts for vacant buildings. .
Several years ago.UHAB made a similar
pr9POSal to the city to play the role it is
now taking on. It took a while but it is
now following up on those ideas."
According to an HPD spokesman,
each group must form a Housing
Development Fund Corporation
(HDFC), exhibit the ability to meet
maintenance and operating costs, and
give evidence of having prior housing
experience of working with architects
and contractors. Also, each group's
project plans must comply with the city's
building code requirements. In addition,
the participating groups are encouraged
to seek technical assistance from
community-based organizations deemed
acceptable by HPD. If approved, these
organizations will receive community
consultant contracts of $10,000 each
from the city.
Stuart Bruck, deputy director of '
HPD's smaIl homes unit, said, "One of
our major goals was to make the old
Direct Loan program better, certainly
much better structured, and we think we
did this here. We think now it will work
better."
Some critics, however, see this revised
sweat equity proposal as the end to low
income homesteading in the city. "I
don't know why they had to get rid of
the old Direct Loan program in the first
place," said Charyl Edmonds, who runs
the homesteading program at the Urban
Homesteading Assistance Board. "They
only granted six loans [under it], and it
was very hard to get them but the build-
ings are doing wonderfully. There've
11
been ... no scandals, no failures. They all
pay the debt service. There were only a
few cost overruns because CETA was
cancelled out during the job.
She also noted that under the new
program's income levels most of the old
homesteaders would not qualify and that
a large of potential
homesteading families will be
disqualified. The income range is
$11,000 to $17,000.
Edmonds also warned that the
buildings would have to be selected very
carefully because in some neighbor-
hoods, such as the Lower East Side the
$27,500 per unit would not be enough to
rehabilitate builcUngs in very poor shape.
But UHAB still intends to assist
groups in applying for the loans and will
continue to advocate for the groups
doing sweat equity.
HPD is hoping to attract private
sector money into this new program. For
this reason, it plans to do the
construction lending at one percent
interest. And, according to Joan Wan.
area director for the small homes unit,
groups that can prove their ability to get
other fmancing "will be looked upon
favorably" when the proposal requests
are being considered. She also said that
HPD was offering to be the construction
lender to make it easier for the borrower
and to give more control over the project
to both HPD and the,participating
group., Among other things, she pointed
out, HPD can call on city inspectors to
examine the contractors' work.
To date, the city has pre-screened 14
buildings in the four boroughs
and has found them to meet the program
qualifications. But, according to city
housing officials, anyone is eligible to
apply. 0
CITY LIMITS/January 1982
Do Mitchell-Lama
Evictions Loom?
S
TATE HOUSING COMMISSION-
er Richard E. Berman has run into a
solid wall of opposition in his effort to
implement a never-before invoked part
of the state Mitchell-Lama law to evict
higher -income residents.
The effort was initiated with a
memorandum of the state Division of
Housing (DHCR) dated November 0,
which stated: "Tenants or cooperators
whose incomes exceed the legal limits for
continued occupancy will be subject to
eviction proceedings. In this regard, it is
expected that the housing company will
initiate all necessary and appropriate
actions to implement the statute and
regulations. "
CITY LIMITS/January 1982
The evictions are aimed at Mitchell-
Lama households whose adjusted
incomes have exceeded eligibility limits
for the moderate-income program by 50
per cent or more for more than three
years. The eligibility limit for a
household of three or less is six times the
rent or co-op carrying charge, and for
larger households the factor rises to
seven times. As of March, 1980,
Mitchell-Lama rentals ranged between
$37.22 and $186.51 per room per month.
Berman's memo sparked some quick
reactions:
The Mitchell-Lama Council, repre-
senting many cooperatives, recommend-
ed rejection of the memo "out of hand,"
12
and called for its rescission.
Charles K. Parness, president of Co-
op City, the largest of the Mitchell-Lama
projects, delcared that "no evictions will
ever be carried out" at the 15,372-unit
complex.
The New York City Department of
Housing Preservation and Development
(HPD), which supervises Mitchell-Lama
developments fmanced by City funds,
announced that it will not implement the
eviction provision.
A coalition of Assembly members
will push in Albany for changes in the
law, supported by members of the New
York City Council.
Neither Berman nor a representative
appeared at a public hearing held
December 17 by the City Council hous-
ing committee. But, those who did
appear to testify jammed the hearing
room. The Mitchell-Lama Council was
joined by the Coordinating Council of
Cooperatives and the Metropolitan
Council on,Housing in denouncing any
eviction policy .
Ruth Lerner, HPD Assistant Com-
missioner for Housing Supervision,
announcing that HPD would not
implement evictions, said, "It is very
important for the City of New York to
have integrated housing-not only
ethnically but economically. "
Both Lerner and Ronald Marino,
HPD Deputy Commissioner for Policy
and Governmedt Liaison, indicated
HPD was considering legislation to
remove the present 50 per cent cap on
surcharges which are paid when income
exceeds eligibility, so that households
Winter Crisis Heat Fund
New York City tenant-owned or
managed buildings that need assistance
to provide heating fuel this winter can
apply for aid through two emergency
assistance programs. The Winter Crisis
earning more would pay a "fair share."
In the state Assembly support has
built for bills which would repeal
outright the existing eviction provisions,
place a moratorium on evictions for a
three-year period, and protect current
residents, but make future tenants
subject to eviction.
Assemblyman Eliot Engel, Democrat-
Liberal of the Bronx, who is chairperson
of the ASsembly Housing Committee's
Mitchell-Lama Subcommittee, said in a
later statement that he had secured
Berman's assurance that DHCR would
review the eviction provision in the light
of the dollar income level at which
evictions would be triggered, and
vacancy rates.
Engel said Berman seemed insistent on
requiring aU households to file an annual
income affidavit, which 3 'to 5 per cent
now fail to do, thus preventing income
from being ascertained. In such cases,
Heat Fund, funded by the National
Council of ChurcheS, is a revolving loan
fund for multiple dwellings in need.
Loans are made to buildings for direct
heating costs including fuel and boiler
repairs. The loan fund is administered by
the Association of Neighborhood
Housing Developers at 424 West 33rd
Street. For more information call
the maximum 50 per cent surcharge is
automatically assessed.
However, Berman has so far refused
to back away from his basic position on
requiring at least some evictions.
DHCR's memo relies on the boards of
directors to implement the order. Should
those boards refuse, Berman has the
option, under statutory authority, to
replace them. Meanwhile, legislators are
looking towards early action in Albany
to revise some of the rules of the game.
DHCR supervises approximately
SO,OOQ units which are under the 6-or-7
times rent-to-income ratio. About 55,<XX>
additional units are subsidized under
federal or state programs where other
income formulas apply. HPD supervises
approximately 52,<XX> units under the
Mitchell-Lama formula, and 11,<XX>
under other subsidy formulas. 0
239-9419.
The Heat Crisis Fund also has an
emergency grant program designed to
assist buildings where heating problems
are too severe to enable loan repayments.
Grants are limited to $3,<XX> per building
and are only for documented fuel costs.
For an application, contact the Winter
Crisis Heat Fund at 749-1304.0
-
--- Tenant Survival Guide: A Self-Help
--- S1P"" Mallual for Tenants Without Services
contains practical advice for tenants and organizers
\
\
\t
13
faced with the task of maintaining essential services.
_This 44-page handbook covers organizjng for self
management, buying fuel, making repairs, using the
City Emergency Repair Program and requesting a 7 A
Administrator. Available in English or Spanish.
If picked up: Free to tenants
$1 per copy for organizations
Ifmai1ed: '1.60 per copy for tenants
$2.60 per copy for organizations
Send orders, specifying English or Spanish. with
payment to:
Task Force on City-Owned Property
40 Worth Street Room 1215
New York, New York 10013

CITY LIMITS/January 1882
Renlal

For those community neighborhood Is the citywide lottery idea based on
housing development groups which have Lol Ie ry achieving integrated housing-a long-
spent the past decade or more in the standing federal programmatic goal?
trenches of low income housing develop- Not according to the community housing
ment, the major conflict has almost developers who point out that the racial
always centered on wrestling adequate of most neighborhoods are
subsidies and funding from an often government but said only a percentage of comparable to citywide levels. Some
resistant and frequently unenthusiastic HUD-assisted housing within the boards breakthrough aloQg these lines may have
could be set aside for local residents. The
government. That battle won, groups been achieved by a HUD offer for the
have had to then playa game of "hurry- percentage would vary, it said, depend- Manhattan Valley group to prove there is
up-and-wait
tt
as their building plans ing upon the ethnic and economic make- no particular ethnic significance in its
match the funding levels, then exceed up of the area. local pool 'of apartment applicants
them again. One housing group where the ruling differing from the citywide list. "Our
But all of that struggle is predicated on had an immediate effect was the area is fairly racially homogenous;'
fmally capturing the elusive goal of Manhattan Valley Development noted Manhattan Valley's housing
providing some safe, quality housing for Corporation on Manhattan's Upper manager Will Baldwin. "This doesn't
those in the neighborhood in need. And West Side where, HUD ordered, 65 mean HUD will raise the percentage
at least some of the years of toil are percent of the 126 newly renovated we're allowed to rent to local people, but
rewarded by seeing some neighbors who Section 8 apartments must be rented to they'll consider it. tt
have spent those years living in households drawn at random from a There have, however, beenfederally-
dangerous, rickety tenements at last citywide list. Last summer at Manhattan assisted housing projects where
esconced in secure and comfortable Valley, nearly 5,000 people mobbed the discrimination has been a continuing
quarters. organization's office when the problem and some see the HUD move
Some non-profit housing groups, availability of applications for the stemming from concern over correcting
however, say they are now being cheated apartments was announced. Amid much that. One Brooklyn organization that
of even that satisfaction and that theirs pushing and shoving, MVDC officials has repeatedly been cited in complaints
may be becoming a hollow victory. The were forced to curtail the distribution from minority applicants, the Crown
dilemma this increasing number of and instead mail out the forms. The Heights Jewish Community Council, is
organizations face is a series of recent commotion made front page news the planning to go to court against HUD's
city and federal decisions which require next day, but the implicit problems in enforcement of the lottery provision
citywide lotteries for the 'selection of trying to pour so many needy people into saying that it would "destroy the
tenants in government-assisted housing. one pot did not. neighborhood'." Earlier projects
What that spells for community housing The HUD ruling appeared at the same developed by the 'group and its sister
groups is the prospect of having to tell time that Mayor Ed Koch was publicly organization, Chevra, have been rented
many local people who have provided lambasting a plan devised by his own to tenants most of whom are white. If
the endorsement and support for the housing department to auction a group forced to use a citywide list, the group's
development Qver the years that their of Harlem brownstones by lottery with project 'would presumably reflect the far
chances of at long last inhabiting the local resients using weighted entries. At more numerous number of minority
housing is slim as they compete against the time, Koch reiterated his aversion to housing applicants.
the vast number of housing-needy quotas and affirmative action. The But regardless of who is confronting
families across the city. The rulings, weighted lottery was denounced by the them, the lotteries threaten to take a
community activists say angrily, both Mayor in favor of one that would be good deal of wind out of the sails of
defeat the purpose and threaten the impartial toward any group of home neighborhood housing groups. Bonnie
future of neighborhood-based housing. seekers. That attitude has apparently Brower, director of the Association of
The federal ruling came early last June carried over to other city housing Neighborhood Housing Developers
in the form of a memorandum from programs, and one Brooklyn housing which has spearheaded opposition,
outgoing Housing and Urban organization, the Fifth Avenue Com- commented, "Renting new or rehabbed
Development New York Area office mittee, has been told by the city housing housing to local residents is often the
manager Alan Weiner. Aimed at department that it qlUst sell the majority main, if not the only way to build strong
apartments rented with HUD-monitored of the ' eleven formerly city-owned communities based on pride of achieve-
low income Section 8 subsidies, the buildings which it has renovated to ment and to preserve the work and com-
memo recognized' New York City's 59 applicants citywide without any mitment of long-time community
community boards as units of city neighborhood preference. residents." .oTR
CITY LIMITS/January 1982 14
Feds Step Out of West Side
Renewal ByHANKPERLIN
C
ITY OFFICIALS AND COM-
munity leaders are looking forward
to the completion of the 23-year-old
West Side Urban Renewal Area now that
the federal government has cleared the
way for construction to begin on the
remaining undeveloped sites.
The federal Housing and Urban Dev-
elopment Administration withdrew from
its oversight role in December, giving the
city free rein to implement the fifth
version of the orignal plan, affecting
nine sites in the 20 square block area.
Federal approval has been awaited ever
since the fifth amendment, formulated
by the local community board with
community participation over four years
ago, was ratified by the City Planning
Commission, the Mayor and the Board
of Estimate in 1979.
The controversial urban renewal
project, initiated in 1958, has already
resulted in the government subsidized
renovation or construction of almost
8,000 units of housing in the area,
bordered by Central Park and Amster-
dam Avenue between 87th and 97th
Street. This includes public housing,
Mitchell Lama buildings and brown-
stones purchased at low prices by private
developers and single families who used
mortgage subsidies and tax abatement
programs to renovate them.
Under the fifth amendment approxi-
mately 1,100 additional renovated or new
apartments will be built at a ratio per site
of 80 percent fair market rental to 20
percent subsidized units to be built under
the Section 8 program. It also includes
plans to expand the landmark Claremont
Riding Academy and the private
Columbia Grammar and Preparatory
School, provide new facilities for Ballet
Hispanico, a non profit professional
dance troupe, and at least 51,000 square
feet of commercial space.
The urban renewal plan was designed
to upgrade what was widely considered
to be ~ blighted area containing large
numbers of poor people living in deter-
iorated and overcrowded housing. This
was to be accomplished by replacing old
,housing with new buildings, reducing
population density levels and creating a
climate that would draw in middle and
upper income families and private
developers.
But, the overcrowding and deteriora-
tion of the housing stock in large part
resulted from neighborhood renewal
projects-Lincoln Center and Fordham
University to the south, and the 3,000
unit middle income housing project
Manhattantown, later renamed Park
West Village, immediately to the north.
These developments forced thousands of
people out of the many tenements that
once occupied those areas, many of
whom moved into what is now the West
Side Urban Renewal Area.
However, the urban renewal plan has
forced many of these same families,
including large numbers of blacks and
Hispanics, to again be displaced because
the 2,500 units of low and middle income
housing subsidized under various city,
state and federal fmancing programs
does not nearly equal the number of in-
expensive apartments that once existed
there.
It is estimated that 6,000 to 12,000
families were forced to move during the
course of the project. Low income
families comprised over 60 percent of
those living in the area before the project
was initiated, according to Stryckers Bay
Neighborhood Council, a group funded
by the government to assist area
residents and participate in the plan's
development. Combined with the influx
of new, more well-to-do residents, they
estimate that this figure will drop to 17
percent by the time it is completed.
Several factors are responsible, for so
many amendments to the plan and
delays in construction. President Nixon's
1973 moratorium on housing programs
delayed construction for several years.
Changes in or the elimination of
government housing and financing
programs forced developers to reformu-
late their plans and again go through
15
lengthy and complex city and federal
approval procedures. As the area became
more attractive to private developers,
there was an ongoing effort to reduce
government participation.
Planning theory evolved to emphasize
the importance of preserving and
renovating existing buildings instead of
massive demolition and reconstruction,
to maintain the character and cohesion
of a community. And bitter community
disputes between advocates and oppo-
nents of subsidized housing led to a
seven-year-Iong law suit against the city,
opposing the construction of public
housing on two sites, that went all the
way to the Supreme Court . Although the
city won that case, it is now apparently
planning to turn both sites, which were
left out of the amendment because the
suit was still pending, over to private
developers for the construction of mixed
income housing.
City officials, community groups and
at least some major real estate interests
now hope that all the sites will move
swiftly towards completion over the next
several years. Still, some potential ob-
stacles remain. The Committee of
Neighbors to Insure a Normal Urban
Environment, (CONTINUE) a small but
vocal group that has led the fight to
minimize the amount of subsidized
housing, is threatening to bring lawsuits
to prevent construction on several sites
where moderate rehabilitation of existing
tenements under the Section 8 subsidy
program and a 168-unit subsidized
housin$ project for the elderly are
planned.
And although Mayor Edward Koch
approved the Fifth Amendment he has
often spoken in favor of private free
market development where feasible, and
has reserved the right to review each
proposal on an individual basis.
Should he try to substantially altc;r any
of the proposals embodied in the plan, it
could very easily provoke another pro-
tracted fight and additional delays. 0
CITY LIMITS/January 1982
-.
,
Rent
Control:
A Source
Book
by John Gilderbloom
and Friends
A collection of more than 3S articles
by housing scholars and activists,
the housing crisis, ex
plaining the causes of rising rents,
discussing the economics of rental
housing and reporting on successful,
Innovative housing programs. Special
attention is given to a nutsandbolts
introduction to rent control: hoW to
write a model rent control law, how to
pass It, how to administer rent
ceilings and the eHect of controls on
the housing stock. Included is a
resource list of tenant unions, legal
organizations, books, newsletters and
housing consultants.
"This Is the best book on the housing
crisis, by the best writers on the
subject . ..
-M"rk Dowie, Mother Jonet
Only .7 . lmall .... , plua _ to 0_
_til.. .nd MndUng. C.Hfo.n" _ .... nta
p!Nee HcI "" ..... til .. Outald. of U.I.
p!Nee .. net G.GO to co.... Mnetlln. .net
poe_ ...

' . N.P.H.I.C. (Found.lIon for N.tlon.1
I'rot-. HoueInl InfonMtlon c.m.rl Mel
a"'" to:
Foundetlon for N ........ I ProtI-
H ........ InfonNItlon Center
P.O. 10. a.
"n_ ........ C" Il1Ol
""0.","11 ... "
Protl.-lve/eIternetIve e ...
'.Delton
CITY LIMITS/January 1982
One Man's Answer
to High Interest Rates
Interest rates have dropped slightly in
recent weeks, but apparently not enough
for Jim Von Brunn of New Hampshire.
On December 7, according to the next
day's Wall Street Journal, Von Brunn
launched a surprise attack on the Wash-
ington, D.C. headquarters of the Federal
Reserve, which controls the flow of
money from the nation's coffers. Von
Brunn reportedly entered the monetar-
ists' lair ,posing as a free-lance photog-
rapher, managed to elude security guards
and reached the hallway outside a second
floor board room where Fed officials
were in morning conference.
According to the Journal report, Von
Brunn then pointed a sawed-off shotgun
at a guard stationed outside the closed
meeting room, this in an apparent
attempt to influence the proceedings
within. A police source quoted by the
Journal described the gunman as
"distraught over high interest rates and
the economy."
The disgruntled citizen was quickly
overpowered by several other security
guards and no shots were fired, but the
one-man revolution didn't end there.
When city police arrived at the scene,
Von Brunn told them he had a bomb in .
his satchel. That claim was proved false
by the D.C. bomb squad, but not before
the Fed's 500 employees had been
evacuated.
Arrested and charged with second
degree burglary, Von Brunn is now
awaiting trial, and quite possibly revising
his approach to economic recovery. 0
Lerner, Walker, Levy & Cohen
1960 Broadway
New York, New York 10023
Attorneys at Law (212) 873-7900
Tenant Representation
Here's How
BENEe
Saves You
EnerlY
DoHars.
18
Customized Energy Audits
Recommendations With Under 3 Year Paybacks
General Contracting For Retrofit
Heat Distribution Balancing
Energy Management Micro-computer Design
and Installation
BENEC
1
53 E I34lh 51 ... 1
...... ,..,L New Yoric. NY 1001.
IlJl.bLl PU 212689-4499
Complete Energy EffIciency For Buildings
1
The
Cliemistryof
Caring
C t t : M I ~
THE CHDISTRY'S JUST RIGHT AT CHEMICAL.
Member FDIC
6.
914-997-1534
GIBSON WINDOWS, INC.
'We Can Save You Money"
Minority Owned
Distributor of
Thermal Break
Alum DHA2.5
H P90 Windows.
Also storm win-
dows and doors.
17
\
Services for Non-Profit.
Community-Based Organizations
in New York City. Long Island
and Westchester:
Grants up to $2500
Loans against government
funded contracts and grants
Technical Assistance
Chemical Bank
Urban Affairs Department
230 Park Avenue- Room 424
New York. N.Y. 10017
Gt
alUIl-
LENDER
ONE STOP SHOPPING for your
DRY WALL PRODUCTS
DISTRIBUTORS OF NATIONAL GYPSUM
U.S. GYPSUM GEORGIA PACIFIC
BOOM EQUIPMENT UP TO 6 STORIES
GYPSUM WALL BOARD. DRY WALL STEEL PRO
DUCTS DRY WALL SCREWS NAILS JOINT
CEMENTS & TAPING TOOLS INSULATION
NOISE CONTROL. STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING
SHAFT.WALL SYSTEM COMPONENTS ADHE
SIVES & SEALANTS. POWER FASTENING TOOLS
FIRE RETARDANT LUMBER SUSPENDED &
CONCEALED CEILINGS & COMPONENTS STRUC
TURAL LUMBER PLYWOOD POWER TOOLS
HARDWARE. DOORS & BUCKS-METAL & WOOD
(212) 875-9700
550 Hamilton Ave., Brooklyn
CITY LIMITS/January 1982
WorkShop
CONTRACT MANAGER
ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION
Pueblo Nuevo Housing & Development
Association, Inc.
Work with Clinton Street Merchant Association to
strengthen the association, explain the-scope and
function of the Economic Revitalization Program, identify
the m.erchant's needs and desired improvements,
develop and write the proposal for funding, monitor the
implementation of the contract and execute all reports
required by the Office of Neighborhood Economic
Development.
Bilingual, Sponish/English, preferably lower East Side
resident. Bachelor's degree or comparable experience.
Two years community organizing, business experience
and minor construction/contracting experience. Fund
raising experience.
Salary: $14,QO.$18,OOO
Send Resumes to: Pueblo Nuevo
313 East Houston Street
New York, New York 10002
Equal Employment Opportunity Employer
Neighborhood Executive
Director
Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City,
Inc., a not-for-profit neighborhood rehabilitation
program seeks (6) Directors. Requires experience in
working with diverse community groups, 1-4 family
housing rehab, creative loan packaging, organizational
management, and supervisory experience. Demonstrat-
ed competence in planning and budgeting. College
preferred or its equivalent in training or experience.
Salary: 823,000-26,000 depending on qualifications.
Indicate geographical preference and send appropriate
number of resumes: Bronx (2), Brooklyn (2), Queens
(1), Staten Island (1).
Contact: Personnel Committee
Neighborhood Reinvestment
1500 Broadway-Suite 800
New York City 10036
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
REHABIUTATlON COORDINATOR
Under general supervision of the Co.mmunity Management director,
maintain responsibility for all aspects of rehabilitation and
maintenance activities in Community Management building .
Includes all planning, coordination and implementation of
construction work. With consultation where appropriate, develop
repair and rehabilitation plans for building upgrading; schedule,
make priorities and coordinate all work. Preparation of specifications
and work scopes, cost estimates, assignment of labor to either outside
contractors or maintenance staff; solicit bids; negotiate contracts;
oversee construction work.
Responsible for coordination of maintenance shop activities with
o v e r ~ strategy for repair and rehabilitation of buildings. Overall
responsibility for planning, assignments and implementation of all
work to be carried out by maintenance chief and crew.
Qualifications: Five years experience construction including
construction management and cost-estimating; experience with
residential rehab essential, preferably familiarity with oldlaw
tenements, experience as a staff supervisor, ability to communicate
well both verbally and in writing. Salary low $20'8, depending upon
experience.
TENANT RELATIONS SPECIALIST
Responsible for the liaison between tenants in Community
Management buildings and Clinton Housing Development Company.
Development of tenant associations to particpate in management and
repair planning and to eventually form tenant cooperatives. Assist
with coordination of maintenance and repair complaints and
responsible for preparation of written reports.
Qualifications: Two years community organizing or social services
experience. College degree or equivalent preferred. Clinton resident,
bilingual SpanishlEnglish preferred. Salary: $13,000.
Resum. to: CHDC, 664 Tenth Avenue, New York. NY 10038. Attn:
u.a Kaplan.
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Office of Properly Management
Division of Alternative Management Programs
Consulting Services for Community
Management Program
Request for proposals for a consultant to provide technical
assistance to NYC's Dept. of Housing Preservation and
Development in housing management and rehabilitation
services for the benefit of contractors in the community
management program. Copies of the RFP will be available
January 15-20, 1982 at 75 Maiden Lane, Room 507.
Construction partner soupt for doing renovation and eventual benlan
development. Prefer Lower East Side resident with tools, know.how,
contacts. Call John, 677-2127, evenings.
Holes in the Safety Net
The New York City Coalition for a Fair Federal Budget
is sponsoring "Holes in the Safety Net" a forum to
document the human suffering brought on by federal
budget cuts. On January 22, 1981, the entire New York
City Congressional delegation has been invited to sit on a
panel in the Police Plaza Auditorium to listen to the voices
of individuals explaining daily impacts of the budget cuts.
Statistical fact sheets and professional's testimony have
focused attention on programs and doUars that have been
reduced or eliminated. This forum has been scheduled to
coincide with the President's Budget Message to the
Congress for Fiscal Year 1983, and provide a human
dimension to the budget debate.
Testimony on employment, income maintenance,
housing, Tide XX, and health is now being organized
through the Community Council of Greater New York.
Persons able to testify or able to identify valuable
testimony should call the Community Council (777-5000)
or Charles Peterson at Pratt Center for Community and
Environmental Development (636-3486). 0
- - - - - - - - - - - . . . . ~ - . - - - - - . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To: The Editors, CITY LIMITS
424 West 33rd Street, New York, New York 10001
Please enter my subscription to CITY LIMITS.
Individuals and community-based organizations:
o One year $9 (ten issues) 0 Two years $15 (twenty issues)
Private businesses, foundations, firms, banks, government agencies, officials and city wide
groups:
o One year $25 0 Two years $40 Corporate sustainers 0 $50 0$75 0$100
group rates are available
Enclose check or money order for $ ___ , payable to ANHD / CITY LIMITS
Name:
Address:
inquire about special rates for low income
CITY L1MITSlJanuary 1982
C I T Y L I
S U B S C R I B E R S
H Y .
C ity L imits is the magazine that for six years
has provided news and analysis of what is hap-
pening to our communities and why.
C ity L imits readers know why owner abandon-
ment has ravaged some neighborhoods while
long-time residents in others face displacement.
Why fair housing is still an issue in New York City.
Why city residents are battling for open space.
These are just a few of the stories C ity L imits
covered in the past year. In the coming months we
will continue to look at these and many other
issues. We hope you'll join us.